James Hawes v. State, A16A1868

In 2004 James Hawes pleaded guilty to enticing a child, statutory rape, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor and received a five-year sentence (60–90 days jail; remainder probated).
Hawes successfully challenged that plea in state habeas; the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the denial of his habeas petition (Hawes I), leading to a jury trial that convicted him on all counts.
After the jury trial Hawes received concurrent 15-year terms for enticing a child and statutory rape, and 12 months for contributing to the delinquency of a minor; he appealed and this Court affirmed (Hawes II).
Federal habeas litigation followed; the Eleventh Circuit later vacated the enticing-child and contributing convictions for ineffective assistance of counsel but affirmed the statutory-rape conviction (Hawes IV).
Hawes moved in state court to vacate the remaining 15-year statutory-rape sentence, arguing it was improperly enhanced by reliance on now-vacated convictions; the trial court denied the motion and treated the enhancement issue as law of the case.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Hawes’ direct appeal, holding he failed to present a colorable claim that his sentence is void and noting the proper avenues for relief (extraordinary motion for new trial, habeas) and jurisdictional limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hawes’ 15-year statutory-rape sentence is void because it was enhanced by reliance on now-vacated convictions	Hawes: sentence was improperly enhanced by factors tied to convictions later vacated; therefore sentence is void and subject to collateral attack	State: sentence was within statutory range and Hawes’ enhancement claim is law-of-the-case or must be raised in proper post-conviction proceedings	Court: sentence is not void; within statutory range; enhancement claim does not present a colorable voidness claim, appeal dismissed
Proper procedural vehicle/jurisdiction to challenge affirmed sentence	Hawes: sought relief via motion to vacate sentence in trial court and direct appeal of that denial	State: relief must be sought via extraordinary motion for new trial, habeas corpus, or discretionary review; direct appeal from such a motion is not proper	Court: Hawes failed to use proper procedures (no application for discretionary review); habeas jurisdiction lies with Georgia Supreme Court; dismissal required

Hawes v. State, 281 Ga. 822 (Georgia Supreme Court) (reversed trial court's denial of state habeas)
Hawes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 461 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (affirmed convictions and 15-year sentence on direct appeal)
Lejeune v. McLaughlin, 296 Ga. 291 (Georgia Supreme Court) (overruling authority cited in Hawes I)
Dalton v. State, 273 Ga. App. 404 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (procedural limits on appealing after direct appeal affirmed)
Hester v. State, 251 Ga. App. 627 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (habeas jurisdiction explanation)
Reed v. State, 296 Ga. App. 366 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (sentence voidness exception when punishment is legally unauthorized)
Coleman v. State, 305 Ga. App. 680 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (dismissal where claim did not present colorable voidness)
Hawes v. Perry, [citation="633 F. App'x 720"] (11th Cir.) (vacated two convictions for ineffective assistance; affirmed statutory-rape conviction)