We have previously held that when the deficiency in a Tachibana colloquy is not related to the right waived, the error appears harmless. See State v. Pantke, No. CAAP-17-0000440, 2018 WL 1918200, at *2 n.4 (Haw. App. Apr. 24, 2018) (SDO) ("Because th[e] error here ... was in failing to properly advise Pantke of his right not to testify, and Pantke did not testify, the error appears to be harmless."); State v. Dykas, No. CAAP-17-0000352, 2018 WL 852202, at *2 (Haw. App. Feb. 14, 2018) (SDO) (determining that where the court omitted the advisement that no adverse inference could be made from the defendant not testifying and the defendant exercised her right not to testify, the omission had no effect on the defendant's decision not to testify because knowing that there would be no adverse consequences from her failure to testify would not have caused or influenced her to testify). Therefore, even if we were to conclude that the Circuit Court erred in not obtaining verbal confirmation that Adcock understood his right not to testify, such error is harmless because Adcock did not waive that right.