Opinion ID: 2813360
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disadvantages of Self-Representation

Text: Finally, Dickson provides that a trial court must also inform the defendant of the inherent disadvantages of selfrepresentation before a waiver of the right to counsel is obtained. 4 Haw. App. at 620, 673 P.2d at 1042-43. An essential obligation in this regard is to meaningfully inform the defendant of his or her right to the assistance of counsel. LaFave et al., supra, § 11.3(a). Such information may be conveyed by the following questions: Because of the seriousness of the offense and the serious consequences of being found guilty, do you understand that you have a Constitutional right to be represented by an attorney at a sentencing hearing? Do you understand that if you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to have free legal representation through the public defender’s office or a court appointed lawyer?[17] The record demonstrates that Phua was not fully aware of his right to court-appointed counsel. When asked whether he understood his right to a court appointed attorney if he could 17 Under HRS § 802-2, “[i]n every criminal case or proceeding in which a person entitled by law to representation by counsel appears without counsel, the judge shall advise the person of the person’s right to representation by counsel and also that if the person is financially unable to obtain counsel, the court may appoint one at the cost to the State.” - 29 - not afford one, Phua responded, “No, I was not aware of that . . . .” The court did not further discuss the right to courtappointed counsel with Phua but instead asked him whether he still wished to proceed without an attorney. We find that Phua’s response that he was not aware of the right to a courtappointed attorney required further explanation and inquiry. See State v. Young, 73 Haw. 217, 220-21, 830 P.2d 512, 514 (1992) (noting that “waiver of a fundamental right is never presumed” and finding that where record is unclear as to whether defendant is waiving his right to jury trial, the court should conclude the defendant is not waiving the right); see also State v. Gomez-Lobato, 130 Hawaiʻi 465, 469, 312 P.3d 897, 901 (2013) (“[T]he court should also engage in an oral colloquy with the defendant to establish that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”); State v. Ibuos, 75 Haw. 118, 122, 857 P.2d 576, 578 (1993) (“The necessity for colloquy between the court and a defendant is especially apparent in light of the importance we place on the personal nature of a defendant's right to a jury trial.”).18 18 In finding this exchange sufficient under Miranda (“No, I was not aware of that . . . .”), the minority reduces the judge’s role to merely notifying a defendant of his constitutional rights, without responsibility to clarify when the defendant expresses confusion or lack of understanding regarding the right that is being advised. See minority at 3-6. (. . .continued) - 30 - Once informed of the right to counsel or court- appointed counsel, the “defendant’s relinquishment of that right must be clear and unequivocal.” LaFave et al., supra, § 11.3(a); see also Young, 73 Haw. at 220, 830 P.2d at 514. Dickson summarizes the information that a trial court should inform a defendant regarding the disadvantages of selfrepresentation: [T]he trial court should inform the defendant: of his right to counsel, whether private or appointed; that self-representation is detrimental to himself; that he will be required to follow all technical rules and substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law; that the prosecution will be represented by able counsel; that a disruption of the trial could lead to vacation of the right to self-representation; and that if voluntary self-representation occurs, the defendant may not afterward claim that he had inadequate selfrepresentation. Dickson, 4 Haw. App. at 620, 673 P.2d at 1041-42 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). (. . .continued) Additionally, the minority’s conclusion, which is premised on the Miranda doctrine, is misplaced. “Miranda protects against the coercive pressures of custodial interrogation.” Wayne R. LaFave et al., 2 Criminal Procedure § 6.4(h) (3d ed.). On the other hand, the Sixth Amendment secures the right to counsel in judicial proceedings. See State v. Luton, 83 Hawaiʻi 443, 448, 927 P.2d 844, 849 (1996) (“An individual has a right to counsel under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of the Hawaiʻi State Constitution which guarantees an accused the right to assistance of counsel for his or her defense. This right “attaches at critical stages of the criminal prosecution.” (alterations omitted) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting State v. Liulama, 9 Haw. App. 447, 453 n.5, 845 P.2d 1194, 1199 n.5 (1992); State v. Masaniai, 63 Haw. 354, 358, 628 P.2d 1018, 1022 (1981))). The distinction between these two constitutional amendments does not render our decision “unprecedented.” See minority at 5. - 31 - Although the district court informed Phua of some of the disadvantages of self-representation, the record does not indicate clearly whether Phua understood the seriousness of his decision to waive his right to counsel. The court might also have warned Phua in simple terms that “self-representation is detrimental to himself” and urged him to reconsider. Id. In this case, the district court’s inquiry into the disadvantages of self-representation is a series of yes or no questions with little opportunity for Phua to express confusion or ask questions. Additional questions, or varying the form of the questions, may have assisted the district court to verify that Phua understood the right he was waiving. See GomezLobato, 130 Hawaiʻi at 479, 312 P.3d at 912. Further, a trial court may find it beneficial to conclude the inquiry with a question seeking an affirmation of the defendant’s desire to waive the right to counsel--e.g., “Understanding all that I have explained to you, do you still wish to waive your right to be represented by a lawyer and to represent yourself at trial?” Had the court concluded its inquiry by asking Phua if he still desired to waive his right to counsel, Phua would have had an opportunity to confirm or change his mind in light of the court’s warnings. - 32 - 3. Validity of Phua’s Waiver The record in this case is critically deficient to support a finding that Phua’s waiver of his right to counsel was intelligently and knowingly made. There were circumstances in this case necessitating further inquiry into Phua’s background, and the record does not reflect that Phua understood the risks and disadvantages of waiving counsel. The fact that the trial court did not warn Phua of the range of allowable punishment in this case is alone sufficient grounds for vacating the sentence.19 Accordingly, this case must be remanded to the district court for a new sentencing proceeding.