State v. Barnes
Citation | 450 P.3d 743 |
Decision Date | 06 June 2019 |
Docket Number | SCWC-15-0000909 |
Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Melvin BARNES, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Hawai'i |
On March 31, 2015, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, Ronald Melvin Barnes ("Barnes"), was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit ("circuit court")1 of four counts of sexual assault in the first degree as to a minor and one count of sexual assault in the first degree as to another minor. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the State’s motion and sentenced Barnes to a term of twenty years for each count, with terms for four of the counts as to one minor to be served concurrently, and the term for the remaining count as to the other minor to be served consecutively to the foregoing terms.
Barnes asserts on certiorari that the circuit court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment and that the ICA gravely erred in affirming the circuit court’s judgment.
Although the points raised by Barnes on appeal as bases for challenging the consecutive terms lack merit, based on State v. Barrios, 139 Hawai‘i 321, 389 P.3d 916 (2016), and State v. Kamana‘o, 103 Hawai‘i 315, 82 P.3d 401 (2003), we hold the circuit court plainly erred by considering Barnes’s refusal to admit guilt in imposing his sentence. Accordingly, we vacate the ICA’s October 2, 2017 Judgment on Appeal and the portion of the circuit court’s October 26, 2015 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence ("judgment") sentencing Barnes, and remand to the circuit court for resentencing.
Following Barnes’s trial, on May 28, 2015, the State moved for consecutive term sentencing. A presentence investigation and report (commonly referred to as a "PSI")2 was filed on June 22, 2015, in which the probation officer stated:
that the defendant never had, so he explained that it meant that she got the disease from someone else. He also indicated that the victim(s) may have been sexually assaulted, but that he was not the perpetrator, and said that it was someone else that was either dating the victim’s mother or living with them at that time. Due to the defendant’s unwillingness to participate in the presentence investigation interview, only the following information is being provided to the court ....
(Emphases added).
The sentencing hearing was held on October 26, 2015. At the hearing, the State explained that four of the five counts of sexual assault in the first degree related to one child complainant, and the remaining count of sexual assault in the first degree related to a second child complainant. According to the State, consecutive term sentencing was appropriate and reasonable, and reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed against the two minors. The State emphasized that Barnes had victimized two different children, and therefore should not be sentenced in the same manner as if he had only victimized one.
In response, Barnes’s counsel asserted that there was no justification for a consecutive sentence under State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai‘i 495, 229 P.3d 313 (2010), as nothing in Barnes’s personal history suggested that he was a sexual predator. Defense counsel also noted that based on his advice, Barnes would not be making a statement as he intended to appeal the case. The circuit court then conducted a colloquy with Barnes before granting the State’s motion:
(Emphasis added).
Judgment was entered on October 26, 2015 reflecting the consecutive terms of imprisonment.
Barnes timely appealed his convictions to the ICA on a single point of error: "[w]hether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing [Barnes] to terms of imprisonment in Counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 for the offense of SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE to run consecutively to the term of imprisonment in Count 13 for the offense of SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE, twenty years as to each count."
The ICA rejected Barnes’s challenge and affirmed the circuit court’s October 26, 2015 Judgment. See State v. Barnes, CAAP-15-0000909, at 5, 139 Hawai‘i 432, 2017 WL 1378211 (App. Apr. 13, 2017) ( SDO ). The ICA noted that a sentencing judge has broad discretion to order multiple terms of imprisonment to run concurrently or consecutively, and that although a sentencing judge must consider the factors set forth in HRS § 706-606 and state on the record at the time of sentencing its reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence, "[a]bsent clear evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a sentencing court will have considered all factors before imposing concurrent or consecutive terms of imprisonment under HRS § 706-606." Barnes, SDO at 3 (quoting State v. Kong, 131 Hawai‘i 94, 102, 315 P.3d 720, 728 (2013) ).
The ICA concluded the circuit court had appropriately considered the HRS § 706-606 factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the need to provide just punishment for the crimes committed, the need for the sentence to promote respect for the law, and to afford deterrence to criminal conduct and to protect the public from further crimes. Barnes, SDO at 4-5. The ICA also noted the circuit court’s statement that Barnes " ‘d[id] not appear to have expressed any sadness that the two children suffered harm of any kind[,]’ " and that Barnes had been uncooperative in the preparation of the PSI. Barnes, SDO at 4.
The ICA concluded that although Barnes raised the existence of some mitigating factors, such as cooperation with the police and lack of a prior criminal history, "the presence of some mitigating factors does not compel this court to conclude that the Circuit Court abused its discretion, especially in light of the Circuit Court’s clear rationale for imposing a consecutive sentence." Barnes, SDO at 5. The ICA added that it rejected...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Baker
...rule that a sentencing court may not consider a defendant's refusal to admit guilt in imposing sentence. State v. Barnes, 145 Hawai‘i 213, 219, 450 P.3d 743, 749 (2019) ; State v. Kamana‘o, 103 Hawai‘i 315, 316, 82 P.3d 401, 402 (2003).1 I disagree with the majority, however, that "there is......
-
State v. Lafoga
...court "will consider issues that have not been preserved below" when "necessary to serve the ends of justice[.]" State v. Barnes, 145 Hawai‘i 213, 218, 450 P.3d 743, 748 (2019) (citing HRPP Rule 52(b) ). "It is firmly established that the relevant inquiry when evaluating whether a trial cou......
-
State v. Lafoga
...issues that have not been preserved below" when "necessary to serve the ends of justice[.]" State v. Barnes, 145 Hawai'i 213, 218, 450 P.3d 743, 748 (2019) (citing HRPP Rule 52(b)). "It is firmly established that the relevant inquiry when evaluating whether a trial court's plain error may b......
-
State v. Satoafaiga
...a defendant's refusal to admit guilt with respect to an offense the conviction of which he intends to appeal." State v. Barnes, 145 Hawai‘i 213, 219, 450 P.3d 743, 749 (2019) (citations and brackets omitted). In State v. Kamana‘o, 103 Hawai‘i 315, 324, 82 P.3d 401, 410 (2003), which is also......