Hicks v. State

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JAROSH, Justice.
• Citation: Hicks v. State, 578 P.3d 366 (Wyo. 2025)
• Docket Number: S-24-0323
• Decision Date: 21 October 2025
• Parties: Christopher Robert HICKS, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

578 P.3d 366

2025 WY 113

Christopher Robert HICKS, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-24-0323

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

October 21, 2025

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, The Honorable Stuart S. Healy III, Judge

Representing Appellant: Lauren McLane, Pro Hac Vice, Laramie, Wyoming; Devon Petersen, Laramie Wyoming. Argument by Ms. McLane.

Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Jones.

Amici Curiae Robert B. Keiter and the State Law Research Initiative: Thomas Carl Garvie, Rogers & Garvie, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming; Kyle C. Barry, State Law Research Initiative, Waltham, MA; and Thomas Roberts, Philips Black, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Before BOOMGAARDEN, C.J., and FOX^*, GRAY, FENN, and JAROSH, JJ.

JAROSH, Justice.

[¶1] Christopher Robert Hicks was sentenced in 2006 to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his role in two murders committed when he was nineteen. In 2024, he filed a motion to correct his sentences, arguing mandatory life without parole sentences for emerging adults are an unconstitutional form of cruel or unusual punishment. He also argued his sentences violated the equal protection provisions in the Wyoming Constitution by impermissibly targeting youthful offenders. The district court denied the motion and Mr. Hicks appealed. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Mr. Hicks presents numerous issues for review concerning the constitutionality of his mandatory life without parole sentences. The State presents two threshold issues regarding the justiciability of Mr. Hicks’ claims. We organize and restate the issues as follows:

I. Is this Court precluded from reaching the merits of Mr. Hicks’ appeal?

A. Are Mr. Hicks’ claims barred by res judicata?

B. Does the Court lack jurisdiction because Mr. Hicks did not follow the notice requirements of Wyoming’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act?

II. Does the Wyoming Constitution afford emerging adults broader constitutional rights than the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

III. Do Mr. Hicks’ mandatory life without parole sentences violate Article 1, Section 15 of the Wyoming Constitution?

IV. Are Mr. Hicks’ mandatory life without parole sentences cruel or unusual under Article 1, Section 14 of the Wyoming Constitution?

V. Are Mr. Hicks’ mandatory life without parole sentences cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

VI. Do Mr. Hicks’ mandatory life without parole sentences violate the equal protection provisions of the Wyoming Constitution?

VII. Is Mr. Hicks entitled to a new sentencing hearing?

FACTS

[¶3] Mr. Hicks was born and raised mostly in Arizona. In ninth grade, his parents moved the family to Gillette, Wyoming, where Mr. Hicks had difficulties adapting and became estranged from his parents. He dropped out of school but sought to reorient his life by joining the military. While in basic training, Mr. Hicks received a medical discharge for an injury. He returned to Gillette, began drinking and using drugs, and moved into a home with forty-year-old Kent Proffit, Sr., and three other men aged eighteen and nineteen — Kent Proffit, Jr., Jacob Martinez, and Jeremy Forquer.

[¶4] This Court previously summarized in his direct appeal, and in greater detail, the circumstances leading up to Mr. Hicks’ crimes. See Hicks v. State, 2008 WY 83, ¶¶ 3-11, 187 P.3d 877, 879 (Wyo. 2008). In brief, those events began in 2005 when Mr. Hicks was nineteen years old. Id., ¶ 3, 187 P.3d at 879. Mr. Hicks was planning to bring a large quantity of marijuana to Gillette and solicited Mr. Martinez to help sell it, but the plan supposedly went bad. Id., ¶ 4. Mr. Proffit, Sr., offered to help because he was “connected,” and led both Mr. Hicks and Mr. Martinez to believe he had resolved their problems. Id. To repay him, Mr. Proffit, Sr., then told the two younger men they owed him favors. Id.

[¶5] At that time, Mr. Proffit, Sr., was awaiting trial on charges that he sexually assaulted his sixteen-year-old stepson BC. Id., ¶ 5. He told Mr. Hicks and Mr. Martinez that one of the favors they owed him was to kill BC. Id. Mr. Proffit, Sr., also told both men that their roommate, Mr. Forquer, was “working for the cops” and could tell law enforcement of their discussions about killing BC and their involvement with drugs. Id., ¶ 6. Accordingly, a plan was developed to kill Mr. Forquer — Mr. Proffit, Sr., would ask Mr. Hicks to perform a chokehold and the men would get Mr. Forquer to volunteer for the demonstration. Id. Instead of demonstrating the chokehold and then letting go, Mr. Hicks would continue strangling Mr. Forquer until he died. Id.

[¶6] The men implemented their plan late one evening in the kitchen of their home. Id., ¶ 7. Mr. Proffit, Sr., Mr. Hicks, Mr. Martinez, and a frequent visitor to the home, fifteen-year-old Michael Seiser, were present. Id. As Mr. Proffit, Sr., requested, Mr. Hicks demonstrated the chokehold on Mr. Forquer and maintained it until his victim lost consciousness. Id. Mr. Hicks, however, indicated he was getting tired. Id. Concerned Mr. Forquer might still be alive, Mr. Proffit, Sr., directed Mr. Martinez to get a rope and tighten it around his neck until the men were certain he was dead. Id. After Mr. Martinez did so, the men cleaned up the kitchen, placed Mr. Forquer’s body and personal items in the trunk of Mr. Hicks’ car, and deposited the body and belongings at various points along the interstate west of Gillette. Id., ¶ 8, 187 P.3d at 880.

[¶7] After Mr. Forquer was murdered, Mr. Proffit, Sr., revisited his interest in killing BC. Id., ¶ 9. He told Mr. Hicks, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Seiser he would have them killed if they did not kill BC. Id. Together, they decided to shoot BC. Id. The murder would take place over Thanksgiving while Kent Proffit, Sr., was in Sheridan, giving him an alibi. Id.

[¶8] In the early morning hours on the day after Thanksgiving, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Seiser drove to BC’s home. Id., ¶ 10. Mr. Hicks helped Mr. Martinez open the door to the home and returned to the car. Id. Mr. Martinez then went inside and shot BC. Id. Afterward, they hid the empty bullet casings in a garbage can of another man they hoped would be identified as a suspect in the murder, disposed of the gun in a septic tank, and returned home. Id. BC’s mother later discovered his body. Id.

Trial, Sentencing, and Direct Appeal

[¶9] The State charged Mr. Hicks with two counts of first-degree murder as an accessory under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(b) (2004) and two counts of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-2-101(b) (2004) and 6-1-303(a) (2004). The State sought the death penalty for Mr. Hicks due to his alleged involvement in the murder of fifteen-year-old BC. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2402(e), (h)(ix) (2004) (aggravating circumstance related to victims less than age seventeen).

[¶10] In August 2006, following a trial, the jury acquitted Mr. Hicks of first-degree murder of Mr. Forquer. However, the jury convicted Mr. Hicks of (1) conspiracy to commit murder in the first-degree of Mr. Forquer; (2) murder in the first-degree of BC; and (3) conspiracy to commit murder in the first-degree of BC. Mr. Hicks was nineteen at the time of his offenses and convictions.

[¶11] Mr. Hicks received two sentencing hearings. Following a two-day sentencing phase, the jury declined to sentence Mr. Hicks to death, and instead, sentenced him to two terms of life in prison without parole for the crimes against BC. The district court held a second hearing several weeks later related to Mr. Forquer’s murder, which included additional sentencing testimony and evidence. The district court sentenced Mr. Hicks to life in prison without parole for conspiracy to murder Mr. Forquer. Mr. Hicks was to serve the three sentences consecutively. Mr. Hicks’ life without parole sentences are considered mandatory sentences because the statute imposed legislatively required punishments. See, e.g., Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(b) (2004). Mr. Hicks filed a direct appeal challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress post-arrest statements he made to law enforcement and his motion for a new trial. Hicks, ¶ 2, 187 P.3d at 879. This Court affirmed the district court’s rulings. Id., ¶ 38, 187 P.3d at 885.

Mr. Hicks’ Motion to Correct Illegal Sentences

[¶12] On July 24, 2024, Mr. Hicks filed a motion to correct illegal sentences pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) (W.R.Cr.P.). He argued new federal precedent and science developed since his initial sentencing made his mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional because emerging adults¹ share the same youthful characteristics with juveniles, for whom mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentences are impermissible.

[¶13] Mr. Hicks largely directed his constitutional challenges at Article 1, Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Wyoming Constitution. He argued these State constitutional provisions collectively provide broader sentencing protections than the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On these grounds, he also challenged the constitutionality of the sentencing statutes used to render his three consecutive life without parole sentences. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-2-101(b) (2004), 6-1-201(b)(iii) (2024), and 6-10-301 (2024).²

[¶14] Mr. Hicks relied on the Roper/Graham/Miller trilogy of United States Supreme Court cases to support his argument that the district court should extend “Miller-protections” to emerging adults in Wyoming. His reference to “Miller-protections” comes from Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), where the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment prohibits sentencing...