Gregory Michael Hawes v. State
2016 WY 30
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Gregory Hawes was convicted of kidnapping and felony stalking; this Court affirmed kidnapping but reversed stalking on appeal (Hawes I) and remanded.
- The district court entered an amended judgment acquitting Hawes of stalking and reconfirming the kidnapping conviction.
- In the original judgment, statutory fees and assessments were tied to the stalking sentence; in the amended judgment those same fees were reflected under the kidnapping sentence.
- Hawes filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence (challenging the amended kidnapping sentence and jury instructions) and a motion to appoint counsel for appeals; the district court denied all three motions.
- The Supreme Court consolidated Hawes’s appeals and considered whether the amended sentence unlawfully increased punishment, whether the court had authority to amend on remand, whether Hawes had to be present for the amendment, and whether counsel should have been appointed for the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Hawes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether moving statutorily-mandated fees from the vacated stalking entry into the kidnapping entry increased the kidnapping sentence (double jeopardy/multiple punishment) | Reassignment of fees to kidnapping increased punishment for kidnapping and violated double jeopardy/ex post facto protections | Fees are statutorily mandated in every criminal case and were imposed originally; their placement under a particular count does not increase punishment | No illegal increase; no double jeopardy or ex post facto violation — fees are tied to the criminal case, not a specific count |
| Whether the district court lacked authority on remand to amend the kidnapping entry | Court on remand exceeded mandate by altering kidnapping sentence | The amended entry merely reconfirmed statutory assessments applicable to the remaining conviction and complied with the mandate | No error — court acted consistently with mandate by confirming the assessments remained part of sentence |
| Whether Hawes had a right to be present when the amended sentence was entered | He was entitled under W.R.Cr.P. 43(a) to be present for imposition of sentence | The amendment was ministerial and non-critical; presence is not required for non-critical post-trial proceedings | No right to be present; presence not required for this ministerial, non-critical action |
| Whether counsel should have been appointed for Hawes’s appeals of denial of Rule 35 motions | Hawes lacks legal training and has depression/medication impairing his ability to proceed; counsel needed | Appointment at non-critical stages is discretionary; no automatic right to counsel for motion to correct illegal sentence or its appeal | No abuse of discretion in denying appointment; motion to correct sentence is non-critical and appointment not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawes v. State, 2014 WY 127, 335 P.3d 1073 (affirming kidnapping; remanding on stalking) (governing remand and posture)
- Bird v. State, 2015 WY 108, 356 P.3d 264 (sentence illegality review de novo; motion to correct limitations)
- Haynes v. State, 2012 WY 151, 288 P.3d 1225 (double jeopardy/multiple punishment principles)
- Hamilton v. State, 2015 WY 39, 344 P.3d 275 (legal sentence cannot be increased after service begins)
- Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, 151 P.3d 261 (appointment of counsel through direct appeal and definition of critical stages)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (fees can constitute punishment for double jeopardy analysis)