Opinion ID: 2813360
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Declaration of Phua’s Counsel

Text: Prior to sentencing, on August 23, 2011, Phua filed a pro se “Motion to Ammend/Writ of Error” (sic) (Motion to Amend) seeking to notify the court of the attempted removal or transfer of a state civil matter to federal court.5 Two days later, on August 25, 2011, Phua’s attorney filed a “Declaration of Counsel” (Declaration). The Declaration stated counsel planned to seek a continuance of the sentencing hearing because he was required to be at a trial on another matter in Hilo on the scheduled hearing date.6 Counsel stated he did not file a formal motion to continue the sentencing date because Phua indicated that he wanted to be present on the 5 For a description of the civil proceedings, see supra, note 4. 6 Counsel indicated he would be available the week following the scheduled hearing date. - 7 - scheduled date and time, even if that meant appearing without counsel. The Declaration presented two scenarios for the court to consider based on whether or not Phua wished counsel to be present at sentencing: “If on his appearance [Phua] wishes counsel present, [then] please consider this a motion for continuance. Otherwise, if Mr. Phua wishes to waive counsel for sentencing [then] please refer to the Presentence Investigation Report and this counsel’s submission to same which I understand is contained therein.” Accordingly, if Phua wished to waive counsel at sentencing, counsel asked the court to refer to the PSI, and argued for leniency in sentencing, noting Phua was caught in a stressful situation related to civil matters. He also recommended no jail or one day, already served, as Phua had no other criminal record: This counsel strongly notes that the fact that [Phua] has no other criminal record. He felt provoked in a stressful situation that appears to be a civil matter that is being addressed through the civil courts. Defense Counsel recommends that no jail or 1 day as already served be considered, as the process has been sufficiently educational. (Emphases added). Counsel pointed out in the Declaration that as of August 25, 2011, he had not received the PSI but that he had contacted probation services to fax it to him. Counsel - 8 - indicated that he would email and mail a copy to Phua when he received it. However, the record does not indicate whether defense counsel received the PSI from probation services or whether he forwarded it to Phua before the sentencing date.