State v. Erum ( 2017 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-15-0000131
09-JUN-2017
01:48 PM
SCWC-15-0000131
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII,
Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
THEODORICO ERUM, JR.,
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-15-0000131; CASE NO. 5DCC-14-0000212)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee State
of Hawaii’s motion for reconsideration, filed May 30, 2017, the
papers in support thereof, and the records and files herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied. According
to State v. Phua, 135 Hawaii 504, 353 P.3d 1046 (2015),
When a defendant elects to proceed pro se, the record must
indicate that the defendant was offered counsel, but he or
she “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently rejected the
offer and waived that right.” The trial court must ensure
two requirements are met: first, the waiver of counsel is
“knowingly and intelligently” made, and second, “the record
is complete so as to reflect that waiver.” The latter
requirement arises because appellate courts are charged
with determining from the record whether there was an
unequivocal waiver, which was voluntarily and freely made.
135 Hawaii at 512, 353 P.3d at 1054 (citing State v. Dickson, 4
Haw. App. 614, 619, 621, 673 P.2d 1036, 1041-42 (1983))
(footnote omitted). The record here does not reflect that the
district court was made aware that defendant may have previously
been a licensed attorney. Our review of the adequacy of the
colloquy is confined to what was in the record before the
district court at the time the colloquy took place.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 9, 2017.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2