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

Heading: Pre-Sentence Allocution

Text: Phua also contends that the district court erred by failing to personally address him regarding his right to presentence allocution. We do not address the merits of this contention in light of our conclusion that Phua did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. Nonetheless, we reiterate the importance of a defendant’s right 19 Since both this opinion and the minority conclude that the district court’s failure to advise Phua of the potential punishment is sufficient ground for vacating the sentence, it is unnecessary to determine whether “sentencing may require a less stringent colloquy.” Minority at 14. We note however that a sentencing proceeding may include extended term sentencing, involving presenting of evidence, cross-examination, argument, and submission of jury instructions. We therefore specifically decline to address this issue. - 33 - to pre-sentence allocution under the Hawaiʻi Constitution and our law. State v. Chow recognized the fundamental importance of a defendant’s right to pre-sentence allocution.20 77 Hawaiʻi 241, 246-47, 883 P.2d 663, 668-69 (App. 1994). Under Chow, trial courts must ensure that its mandate is complied with during sentencing proceedings, particularly as it is “essential to fair treatment.” Id. at 250, 883 P.2d at 672. Accordingly, “[t]rial judges before sentencing should, as a matter of good judicial administration, unambiguously address themselves to the defendant” providing a personal invitation to speak prior to sentencing. Id. at 248, 883 P.2d at 670 (quoting Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 305 (1961)). The right is one easily administered by the trial court by the following inquiry: “Do you, . . . [(defendant’s name)], have anything to say before I pass sentence?” Id. at 248, 883 P.2d at 670 (alterations in original) (quoting Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 305 (1961)). 20 See also HRS § 706-604(1) (1993 & Supp. 2006) (“Before imposing sentence, the court shall afford a fair opportunity to the defendant to be heard on the issue of the defendant’s disposition.”); Rule 32(a) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) (2006) (“Before suspending or imposing sentence, the court shall address the defendant personally and afford a fair opportunity to the defendant and defendant’s counsel, if any, to make a statement and present any information in mitigation of punishment.”). - 34 - We observe the trial court has an especially important role in affording the right to pre-sentence allocution to a defendant appearing pro se at sentencing. When a pro se defendant is not responsive to the court’s request for allocution, the trial court may, as a matter of good judicial administration, seek confirmation that the defendant understands the right to address the court regarding sentencing before the sentence is imposed.21