Whether Patterson v. New York has been abrogated by Apprendi and Alleyne

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether this Court’s decision in Patterson v. New York (1977), which permitted placing the burden on a criminal defendant to establish mitigating facts lessening a penalty, has been abrogated by Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Alleyne v. United States (2013), which made clear that a state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including those facts that establish the statutory punishment, and especially those that facts that aggravate a mandatory minimum or statutory maximum sentence? II. | Whether, when state court interpretations of state law point in opposite directions, with differing federal constitutional consequences, must a federal habeas court defer to one interpretation over the other in its deferential review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)? i PROCEEDINGS BELOW State of Wyoming v. Hawes, District Court for the Sixth Judicial District, Campbell County, State of Wyoming, Criminal Docket No. 6327, Verdict entered August 16, 2013. Hawes v. State, Supreme Court of Wyoming, No. S-14-0018, 335 P.3d 1073, Direct appeal, Oct. 14, 2014 State of Wyoming v. Hawes, District Court for the Sixth Judicial District, Campbell County, State of Wyoming, Criminal Docket No. 6327, Post-conviction order entered January 23, 2017. Hawes v. State of Wyoming, Wyoming Supreme Court, No. $-17-0038, Post-conviction decision entered February 22, 2017. Hawes v. Wilson, District Court for the Eighth Judicial District, Goshen County, State of Wyoming, Docket No. CV-2018-60, Post-conviction order entered April 10, 2019. Hawes v. Pacheco, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, Post-conviction decision entered July 16, 2019. Hawes v. Pacheco, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-8047, Post-conviction opinion entered August 10, 2021. ii