State v. Phua

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that Han Kamakani Phua did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional right to counsel at sentencing. The court concluded that the district court’s inquiry was insufficient, particularly given the circumstances bearing on Phua’s comprehension and the court’s failure to adequately address the risks and disadvantages of self-representation. Phua’s sentence was vacated and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

Holdings

1. A sentencing proceeding is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution, and a waiver of counsel at sentencing is invalid when the record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right after being adequately informed of the risks and disadvantages of self-representation.
2. Before accepting a waiver of counsel for sentencing, the trial court must inform the defendant of the potential punishment that may be imposed; failure to provide that information is sufficient ground to vacate the sentence.
3. The court did not decide the merits of Phua's pre-sentence-allocution claim because the invalid waiver of counsel independently required vacatur and resentencing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court established that Phua knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to counsel at sentencing.
2. Whether the district court violated Phua's right to pre-sentence allocution by failing to personally address him regarding his opportunity to speak before sentencing.

Disposition

vacated