State v. Erum, SCWC-15-0000131

Petitioner Theodorico Erum, Jr. was charged in district court with simple trespass (HRS §708‑815) and harassment (HRS §711‑1106) following a property dispute.
At arraignment (Aug 6, 2014) Erum said he read the complaint and waived reading of charges; the court advised him about the Public Defender but he did not apply immediately.
Erum proceeded pro se to a bench trial (Nov 13, 2014); the court asked whether he had been referred to the Public Defender and whether he wanted more time to retain counsel; Erum elected to proceed.
The district court convicted Erum and imposed fines and fees totaling $330.00.
On appeal the ICA affirmed the district court, but the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, reviewing for plain error, found the record lacked an adequate, knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel and vacated the judgments, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of waiver of right to counsel	State argued no plain error; appellant bore the burden to provide transcripts; ICA properly affirmed without transcripts	Erum argued he knowingly waived counsel and proceeded voluntarily pro se	Court held there was no valid waiver: record did not show waiver was knowing, intelligent, and complete; vacated judgments and remanded
Adequacy of court’s inquiry when defendant waives counsel	State: colloquies were sufficient; defendant did not preserve error	Erum: court advised about Public Defender and he chose to proceed	Court held the court failed to inquire into defendant’s background, risks, and disadvantages as required by Phua/Dickson framework
Appellate record/transcript burden	State/ICA: appellant must provide transcripts; absence justified ICA’s limited review	Erum: proceeded pro se so court should review for plain error regarding counsel right	Court applied plain error review limited to counsel-right issue, used supplemented audio recordings, and remedied constitutional defect despite missing transcripts

State v. Phua, 135 Hawai‘i 504, 353 P.3d 1046 (discusses requirements and three‑part inquiry for valid waiver of counsel)
State v. Dickson, 4 Haw. App. 614, 673 P.2d 1036 (explains necessity of informing defendant of dangers of self‑representation)
State v. Merino, 81 Hawai‘i 198, 915 P.2d 672 (right to counsel at every critical stage)
State v. Dicks, 57 Haw. 46, 549 P.2d 727 (voluntariness and totality of circumstances for waiver)
State v. Fields, 115 Hawai‘i 503, 168 P.3d 955 (court may notice plain error sua sponte)
State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai‘i 327, 141 P.3d 974 (plain‑error standard and substantial rights)
State v. Uyesugi, 100 Hawai‘i 442, 60 P.3d 843 (constitutional rights as substantial rights under plain‑error review)
State v. Sawyer, 88 Hawai‘i 325, 966 P.2d 637 (purpose of plain‑error correction to protect fairness and integrity)