Background
George Hawkins was indicted on charges involving his wife, H.H., including felonious assault, domestic violence, and menacing by stalking. He pleaded guilty to one amended domestic-violence count, from which references to prior convictions were removed, and one felonious-assault count. The remaining counts were dismissed.
The trial court sentenced Hawkins to an indefinite prison term of eight to 12 years for felonious assault and 180 days for domestic violence. It awarded 39 days of jail-time credit: one day for September 26, 2025, and 38 days for his confinement from October 20 through November 26, 2025. Hawkins appealed, challenging the credit calculation and alleging ineffective assistance during sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Because Hawkins had not objected to the jail-time credit at sentencing, the court reviewed for plain error and found none. The record showed that Hawkins was arrested and bonded out on September 26, then was taken into custody early on October 20 and remained jailed through his November 26 pleas. The trial court therefore correctly awarded 39 days of credit.
The court also rejected Hawkins’s claim that defense counsel prejudiced him by questioning H.H.’s credibility and discussing Hawkins’s belief that H.H. and his cousin had conspired to provoke an assault. The sentencing judge expressly said H.H.’s credibility did not affect the sentencing analysis, and Hawkins himself repeated his belief about their relationship. Given Hawkins’s extensive criminal history, violence against multiple victims, and failure to respond to prior sanctions and treatment, he could not show a reasonable probability that counsel’s remarks caused a harsher sentence.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who does not challenge jail-time credit at sentencing generally limits appellate review to plain error.
- The record supported 39 days of credit because Hawkins bonded out on September 26 and was not taken back into custody until October 20.
- Speculation that counsel’s sentencing remarks produced a harsher sentence did not establish prejudice under Strickland.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that jail-time-credit claims turn on documented periods of qualifying confinement, not merely asserted arrest dates. It also illustrates the difficulty of proving ineffective assistance at sentencing when the judge disclaims reliance on the challenged remarks and independently identifies substantial aggravating factors supporting the sentence.