State v. Cramer, 299 P.3d 756

Cramer was charged with multiple drug offenses and admitted into Maui Drug Court in 2009.
A State motion to terminate Drug Court participation was granted in 2010 after Cramer allegedly violated program terms.
At sentencing in January 2011, privately retained counsel sought substitution for the deputy public defender and a three-week continuance; the court denied as untimely.
Sentencing proceeded with the deputy public defender, and Cramer was ultimately sentenced to concurrent terms including a ten-year term for Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree.
Privately retained counsel later substituted, and Cramer appealed challenging the denial of substitution and continuance as violations of his right to counsel of his choice; the ICA affirmed, and the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated and remanded for resentencing.
The decision discusses Act 44 sentencing provisions and the Hawaii constitution’s protections for counsel of choice, with a focus on structural versus trial error analyses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of substitution of counsel violated right to counsel of choice	Cramer (plaintiff) argues right to privately retained counsel of choice was violated	State argues discretion to deny substitution; request untimely and contingent on continuance	Abused discretion; right to counsel of choice violated and remand for resentencing
Whether denial of continuance alongside substitution was an abuse of discretion	Cramer contends balancing tests were not applied and due process was affected	State contends discretion with calendar management; no prejudice shown	Abuse of discretion; improper balancing of interests; remand for resentencing
Whether Cramer could be sentenced under Act 44 or other applicable statutes on remand	Cramer can seek probation or other sentences on remand	ICA relied on non-eligibility findings but remand allows new consideration	Remand for resentencing; potential applicability of Act 44 or other sentences retained

State v. Maddagan, 95 Haw. 177 (2001) (right to counsel of choice under Hawaii constitution balanced against government interests)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (counsel of choice is a Sixth Amendment right; erroneous deprivation is structural)
Torres, 54 Haw. 502 (1973) (continuance and substitution considerations; trial timing important)
Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (trial vs structural error framework; harmless error discussion)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard for constitutional rights)
Suka, 79 Haw. 293 (1995) (categories of harmless error under Hawaii law; fundamental rights never harmless)
Mundon, 121 Haw. 339 (2009) (Hawaii adoption of fundamental rights not subject to harmless error)
Bowe, 77 Haw. 51 (1994) (coerced confession under Hawaii constitution; harmless error analysis not always applicable)