State v. Phua., 353 P.3d 1046

Defendant Han Kamakani Phua was charged with harassment and stood trial with counsel; trial resulted in a guilty verdict; sentencing occurred August 29, 2011; Phua appeared at sentencing without counsel after firing his attorney and submitting a declaration about continuance; the district court did not calendar or explicitly rule on the declaration but proceeded to sentence Phua; the court did not warn about the range of punishments at sentencing and did not confirm receipt or review of the presentence investigation report (PSI); the Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the waiver finding, and the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Phua's waiver of counsel knowingly and intelligently made at sentencing?	Phua argues the district court failed to tailor the Dickson factors and did not warn of sentencing punishments or assess his background.	State contends the waiver was knowingly and intelligently made, given Phua fired counsel and did not seek new counsel, with sufficient warnings.	Waiver not knowingly intelligent; remand for new sentencing.
Did the district court adequately inform Phua of the risks and disadvantages of self-representation?	Phua lacked understanding due to language and education factors; warnings were vague.	Warnings given were adequate under Dickson and Miranda-based standards.	Insufficient warnings; remand.
Was Phua informed of the range of possible punishments at sentencing?	Knowledge of potential penalties is essential to a knowing waiver at sentencing.	Warning about penalties was not necessary to the extent required by Dickson.	Failure to inform range of punishments requires remand.
Did Phua receive a proper opportunity for pre-sentence allocution?	Phua argues lack of personal address on allocution; burden lies on court to ensure opportunity to speak.	Court did provide opportunity to speak; allocution rights addressed.	Allocution rights discussed but the primary flaw was waiver of counsel; this issue is not reached on remit.

State v. Dickson, 4 Haw. App. 614 (Haw. App. 1983) (waiver of counsel inquiry standards; three Dickson factors)
United States v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2004) (informing defendant of right to counsel; stages of proceedings; Miranda warnings relevance)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation and warnings of disadvantages)
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (U.S. 1988) (pragmatic approach to waiver; need for warnings appropriate to stage)
Gomez-Lobato, 130 Haw. 465, 312 P.3d 897 (Haw. 2013) (language barrier requires further inquiry to ensure understanding)
State v. Young, No. 140 Haw. 217, 1992 (Haw.) (waiver of fundamental right not presumed; need clarity about rights)
State v. Davia, 87 Haw. 249, 953 P.2d 1347 (Haw. 1998) (allocution rights under Hawaii law)