Jewkes v. State

• Citation: 2022 WY 90
• Decision Date: 18 July 2022
• Docket Number: S-21-0244
• Parties: JADE JEWKES, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2022 WY 90

JADE JEWKES, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. S-21-0244

Supreme Court of Wyoming

July 18, 2022

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County The Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant:

John H. Robinson and Marci Crank Bramlet, Robinson Welch Bramlet LLC, Jackson and Casper, Wyoming; John P. LaBuda and Rives White, LaBuda and White, Pinedale, Wyoming. Argument by Mr Robinson and Mr. LaBuda.

Representing Appellee:

Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Catherine M. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Mercer.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

GRAY JUSTICE.

[¶1] Jade Jewkes pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide and driving under the influence. She was sentenced to the maximum term of fifteen to twenty years for aggravated vehicular homicide and a concurrent six months for driving under the influence. On appeal Ms. Jewkes contends that at sentencing the district court improperly relied upon her refusals to take a breath test and to answer questions after the accident in violation of her constitutional rights against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures. She also argues that the district court weighed the expectations of the community in sentencing her, in violation of her constitutional right to equal protection. We conclude that the district court plainly erred when it considered Ms. Jewkes' silence and community expectations in sentencing her. We reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

ISSUES

[¶2] The issues are:^[1]

1. Did the district court improperly punish Ms. Jewkes for exercising her constitutional right against self-incrimination?

2. Did the district court improperly punish Ms. Jewkes based on community expectations?

3. Did the district court's errors materially prejudice Ms. Jewkes?

FACTS

[¶3] On January 1, 2021, in Sublette County, Wyoming, Ms. Jewkes drove her Jeep into oncoming traffic and collided with a Ford F-250 driven by Shane Deal. Mr. Deal was killed. Ms. Jewkes had a blood alcohol concentration of .22.

[¶4] Ms. Jewkes pled guilty to aggravated homicide by vehicle (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-106(b)(i)) and driving under the influence (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(b)(i) and (b)(iii)(A)).^[2] The district court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, the district court listed the materials it considered in preparation for the hearing, including the court file, the court's notes, Ms. Jewkes' statements to the court, the Information, the highway patrol officer's affidavit supporting the Information, the presentence investigation report, victim impact statements, restitution submissions, and statements about Ms. Jewkes' character. The district court then took evidence including statements from victims, witnesses for the State, and witnesses in support of Ms. Jewkes.^[3]After hearing the testimony and prior to giving Ms. Jewkes an opportunity to speak, the district court announced it had "a few things to say":

Ms. Jewkes, I have tried to tell you about all the things that I've looked at, reviewed, considered and thought about in preparation for this hearing. . . .

There were some other things, though, that I thought were noteworthy. These come out of the Affidavit of Trooper Kiel where you were first contacted after the accident by Trooper Kiel and Trooper Johnson. You were - you admitted to Trooper Johnson that you had consumed a large amount of alcohol. He asked you to provide a breath sample and you refused and you refused to answer any questions. Later you were attended to by EMS staff and you were uncooperative with them. You were taken to the hospital in Jackson where Trooper Kiel attempted to interview you, but you refused to answer questions. Your mother released your iPhone to the trooper to be seized as evidence, but you refused to provide your PIN number to the trooper.

(Emphasis added.) The court went on to discuss factors it considers in sentencing including rehabilitation, deterrence, punishment, retribution, and the risk posed by the defendant to the community. It then explained:

And so those are generally the factors that trial judges will use under whatever label they may call them. I have an additional factor, and it may be included in the view of some of my colleagues something else, but I have a separate factor that I do tend to rely on quite a bit and it's because of the nature of my work as a judge in the State of Wyoming. I'm a judge in the Ninth Judicial District Court. There are three counties that are in the Ninth Judicial District, Teton County, Sublette County and Fremont County. I have pretty much all the cases - criminal cases assigned to me in Sublette County because I'm the judge that is here. Sometimes I have a conflict or whatever so another judge will be assigned a criminal case, but for the most part almost all the criminal cases are ones assigned to me. I'm also assigned cases in Fremont County on a regular rotating basis, I get every third felony criminal case in Fremont County assigned to me and so I have quite a caseload in Fremont County. I've had a number of cases assigned to me out of Teton County. I don't know if I have any pending right now, but over the years I've had many criminal cases assigned to me and that's just within the Ninth Judicial District. I currently have cases - criminal cases assigned to me in Lincoln County, in Uinta County, in Sweetwater County. I've had them assigned to me as far away as Campbell County, Gillette, so I've worked around the state in my almost 13 years as a judge, and I'm just trying to describe to you about this other factor that many other judges don't have because they don't travel and accept cases as frequently as I do in other counties in other places, and that's a factor involving kind of community values. And I kind of picked up on this because I detected fairly early on that there's a difference in - between counties and sometimes even between municipalities within counties or a rural part of the county compared to a more populus [sic] part of the county about what those citizens expect will happen when people are committing certain kinds of crimes. And I can tell you there's a big difference on how someone, for example, out of Teton County, a citizen out of Teton County would view on someone committing a crime compared to what people in Sublette County and even - I don't mean to divide Sublette County by the north/south thing, but even between Big Piney/Marbleton and Pinedale I can detect a difference sometimes in what people expect should happen depending on the nature of the crime. And that's certainly true in Fremont County even between Riverton and Lander, the attitudes about what should or the community expects to happen when somebody commits a crime in Fremont County it definitely is there. And so I try to consider that as a separate factor and consider where I am and what the citizens in our jurisdiction where this crime is when I'm doing the sentencing expects me to do.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶5] The maximum sentence for aggravated homicide by vehicle is twenty years. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-106(b). The maximum sentence for driving under the influence is graduated and increases if a defendant has prior driving under the influence convictions. Ms. Jewkes' maximum sentence was six months.^[4] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(e). The district court sentenced Ms. Jewkes to a term of fifteen to twenty years on Count I (aggravated vehicular homicide) and six months on Count III (driving under the influence), to be served concurrently with Count I.

[¶6] Ms. Jewkes appeals, arguing that the district court violated her constitutional right to a fair sentence when it "emphasized, and likely punished, her decision to exercise her constitutional rights at the time of her arrest," and when it "expressed that the severity of the sentence depended upon the county in which it presided over her." She also contends that cumulative effect of these errors prejudiced her.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶7] At sentencing Ms. Jewkes did not object to the district court's comments. Accordingly, our review is for plain error. See Town v. State, 2015 WY 78, ¶ 9, 351 P.3d 257, 260 (Wyo. 2015) (where defendant did not object to statements made at sentencing, review is for plain error); Sandoval v. State, 2009 WY 121, ¶ 6, 217 P.3d 393, 395 (Wyo. 2009) (where defendant failed to object to sentencing procedures, review is for plain error). This is true even when, as here, the appellant claims that her constitutional rights have been violated. Ridinger v. State, 2021 WY 4, ¶ 32, 478 P.3d 1160, 1168 (Wyo. 2021) (reviewing for plain error Mr. Ridinger's claim that the prosecutor's comments impinged on his right to remain silent); Hartley v. State, 2020 WY 40, ¶¶ 9-10, 460 P.3d 716, 719 (Wyo. 2020) (reviewing for plain error Mr. Hartley's claim that the prosecutor's closing argument improperly commented on his constitutional right to remain silent because he did not object at trial).

[¶8] To establish plain error, Ms. Jewkes must show that (1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the alleged error violates a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) she was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice. Ridinger, ¶ 33, 478 P.3d at 1168 (citing Mraz v. State, 2016 WY 85 ¶ 55, 378 P.3d 280, 293 (Wyo. 2016)). The first element of plain error is satisfied because the district court's comments appear clearly in the record. We address the second and third prongs below.

DISCUSSION

[¶9] Ms. Jewkes argues that the district court's reliance on her refusals...