State v. Barnes., 450 P.3d 743

Ronald Melvin Barnes was convicted by a jury of five counts of first‑degree sexual assault against two minors and sentenced to 20 years on each count; four counts to run concurrently and one to run consecutively.
The State moved for consecutive terms; the probation officer prepared a PSI noting Barnes refused to participate and asserted his innocence and intent to appeal.
At sentencing defense counsel stated Barnes would not make a statement on advice of counsel because he intended to appeal; the court asked Barnes directly and he declined to speak.
The circuit court granted the State’s motion for a consecutive term, citing the seriousness of offenses, two victims, deception over time, lack of apparent remorse, and Barnes’s uncooperativeness with the PSI.
The ICA affirmed, treating the sentencing decision as within the court’s broad discretion and presuming the statutory factors under HRS §706‑606 were considered.
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that although the consecutive sentence was otherwise supportable, the circuit court plainly erred by relying on Barnes’s refusal to admit guilt (and related lack of cooperation) in imposing sentence; vacated the sentence portion and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence	State: consecutive terms appropriate because two separate child victims and factors under HRS §706‑606 were satisfied	Barnes: no unrelated priors, no predator history, mitigating facts (delay in reporting, interview issues) — and counsel argued no justification for consecutive sentence	Court: No abuse of discretion in choosing consecutive terms on the merits; statutory factors were addressed and adequate reasons given
Whether the court erred by considering defendant’s refusal to admit guilt or failure to cooperate with the PSI when sentencing	State: reliance on uncooperativeness and perceived lack of remorse supported sentencing	Barnes: sentencing impermissibly penalized his exercise of the right to remain silent and to appeal	Held: Plain error. Court improperly considered Barnes’s refusal to admit guilt (three‑factor Kamanaʻo/Wesley test satisfied); sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

State v. Barrios, 139 Hawai‘i 321 (Haw. 2016) (reiterating defendant’s right not to be penalized for refusing to admit guilt at sentencing)
State v. Kamana‘o, 103 Hawai‘i 315 (Haw. 2003) (adopts Wesley three‑factor test to detect sentencing based on refusal to admit guilt)
State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai‘i 495 (Haw. 2010) (requirement that sentencing court state on the record reasons for consecutive sentencing)
State v. Kong, 131 Hawai‘i 94 (Haw. 2013) (sentencing court need only articulate factors it actually relied upon under HRS §706‑606)
People v. Wesley, 411 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1987) (three‑factor framework: post‑conviction insistence on innocence; judge’s attempt to elicit admission; appearance that admission would have led to lesser sentence)