Leroy Terrell Hunter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                      FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                             May 29 2019, 10:33 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                               CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Bradley Keffer                                           Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Brooke Smith                                             Attorney General of Indiana
    Keffer Barnhart LLP                                      J.T. Whitehead
    Indianapolis, Indiana                                    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Leroy Terrell Hunter,                                    May 29, 2019
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    19A-CR-108
    v.                                               Appeal from the Vanderburgh
    Superior Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable Robert J. Pigman,
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                      Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    82D03-1802-MR-1106
    Brown, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019                    Page 1 of 7
    [1]   Leroy Terrell Hunter appeals his sentence for voluntary manslaughter as a level
    2 felony enhanced by his possession of a firearm. He raises one issue which we
    revise and restate as whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
    of the offense and his character. We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   On November 10, 2017, Dion Banks introduced Donald Xavier Freels to
    Carolyn Butler whom Banks knew sold synthetic cannabinoids or “Katey,” as
    well as methamphetamine and marijuana. Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at
    53. Freels and Butler made plans for a narcotics transaction. Hunter and
    Zachery Hunter (“Zachery”) accompanied Butler when she went to meet
    Freels.
    [3]   Freels asked to see the narcotics, and Butler handed him methamphetamine
    and marijuana. Freels began to weigh the narcotics with his own scale. Butler
    heard Freels say “what are you two n----- on,” and she heard gunshots
    immediately after. Id. at 55. She saw a muzzle flash in the rearview mirror
    coming from the gun that Hunter was firing in Freels’s direction. Freels was
    shot multiple times, and Hunter and Zachery loaded his body into the back seat
    of Butler’s vehicle and told her to drive. Butler drove to the end of an access
    road, and Hunter and Zachery removed Freels’s body and “dumped him like
    trash.” Id. Hunter and Zachery looked in Freels’s pockets and found he did not
    have any money. An autopsy revealed that Freels was shot seven times
    including three shots to his head and four to his upper and lower back and that
    two different calibers of bullets were used in the shooting. Butler’s sister later
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019   Page 2 of 7
    indicated to police that she had heard Hunter say that Freels pulled out a gun
    and attempted to rob Butler.
    [4]   On February 13, 2018, the State charged Hunter with murder and alleged that
    he was eligible for a sentencing enhancement for committing a felony offense
    while a member of a criminal organization as well as for committing a felony
    offense while using a firearm.
    [5]   On November 14, 2018, the court held a hearing at which the parties indicated
    that Hunter would plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter as a level 2 felony
    and admit the firearm enhancement, and the court would sentence him to
    between twenty and forty years. On December 14, 2018, the court held a
    hearing, and Hunter pled guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. Hunter did not
    present evidence, but his counsel argued that he had no prior felony history, the
    crime was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur, he is unlikely to commit
    another crime, Freels either induced or facilitated the offense, and his
    incarceration would result in undue hardship on his three children. 1 Hunter’s
    counsel asked for a sentence of fifteen years enhanced by eight years for the
    firearm enhancement. The prosecutor asked for a sentence of forty years.
    1
    The presentence investigation report states that Hunter had zero dependent children. At sentencing,
    Hunter’s counsel stated: “Judge, we went through the presentence in the back and everything appears to be
    accurate. He did not indicate any changes and I did not see any going through it as well.” Transcript
    Volume II at 13.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019                     Page 3 of 7
    [6]   On December 19, 2018, the court continued the hearing, accepted the plea
    agreement, found Hunter’s criminal history and the nature and circumstances
    of the offense surrounding the killing as aggravators, and sentenced him to
    twenty years for voluntary manslaughter enhanced by twenty years on the
    firearm enhancement for an aggregate sentence of forty years.
    Discussion
    [7]   The issue is whether Hunter’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
    the offense and the character of the offender. Hunter contends that Freels’s
    death and the use of a firearm were already accounted for in the conviction and
    that he was not one of the main proponents or planners involved in the drug
    deal. He argues that Freels was actually trying to rob Butler, that he has led a
    law-abiding life for a substantial period of time, he is likely to respond
    appropriately to probation or short-term imprisonment, he is unlikely to
    commit another crime, his imprisonment will result in undue hardship to his
    three children, and he accepted responsibility for his crime.
    [8]   The State argues that the facts surrounding the crime and Hunter’s criminal
    history were valid considerations and that the facts surrounding the crime
    undermine and contradict Hunter’s alleged mitigating circumstances. It asserts
    that the fact that Freels was shot in the back completely undermines any claims
    that he acted in a way that necessitated the shooting.
    [9]   Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by
    statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019   Page 4 of 7
    sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
    of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade
    the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,
    
    848 N.E.2d 1073
    , 1080 (Ind. 2006).
    [10]   
    Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4
    .5 provides that “[a] person who commits a Level 2 felony
    shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years,
    with the advisory sentence being seventeen and one-half (17 ½) years.” 
    Ind. Code § 35-50-2-11
    (g) provides that if the court finds that “the person knowingly
    or intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the offense under
    subsection (d), the court may sentence the person to an additional fixed term of
    imprisonment of between five (5) years and twenty (20) years.”
    [11]   Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Hunter accompanied Butler
    who had sold synthetic cannabinoids, methamphetamine, and marijuana, to a
    narcotics transaction. He fired a gun in Freels’s direction, and Freels was shot
    seven times including three shots to his head and four to his upper and lower
    back. He dumped Freels’s body like trash and looked in his pockets.
    [12]   Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Hunter pled guilty to
    voluntary manslaughter as a level 2 felony and a firearm enhancement after he
    was charged with murder and two sentencing enhancements. His criminal
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019   Page 5 of 7
    history includes convictions for residential entry, 2 reckless driving and public
    intoxication as class B misdemeanors, and operating a motor vehicle without
    ever having received a license as a class C misdemeanor. 3 The presentence
    investigation report (“PSI”) reveals that Hunter was charged with false
    informing and public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor and received “12
    days VCJ.” 4 Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 46. It also lists a charge of
    alcohol intoxication in a public place with a sentencing date of March 13, 2008,
    but states: “No disposition available.” 
    Id.
     In 2008, Hunter’s probation was
    revoked. The PSI indicates that his overall risk assessment score places him in
    the high risk to reoffend category. After due consideration, we conclude that
    Hunter has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is
    inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. 5
    [13]   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hunter’s sentence.
    2
    The entry in the chronological case summary related to residential entry lists an offense date of May 14,
    2003, and a sentencing date of October 18, 2007.
    3
    The entry for reckless driving, public intoxication, and operating a motor vehicle without having received a
    license lists an offense date of April 14, 2003, and a sentencing date of September 26, 2007.
    4
    The entry for these offenses lists an offense date of October 11, 2008, and a sentencing date of November
    22, 2017.
    5
    To the extent Hunter argues that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him by failing to consider
    certain mitigators, we need not address this issue because we find that his sentence is not inappropriate. See
    Chappell v. State, 
    966 N.E.2d 124
    , 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that any error in failing to consider
    the defendant’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor is harmless if the sentence is not inappropriate) (citing
    Windhorst v. State, 
    868 N.E.2d 504
    , 507 (Ind. 2007) (holding that, in the absence of a proper sentencing order,
    Indiana appellate courts may either remand for resentencing or exercise their authority to review the sentence
    pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh’g denied; Mendoza v. State, 
    869 N.E.2d 546
    , 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
    (noting that, “even if the trial court is found to have abused its discretion in the process it used to sentence the
    defendant, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed was not inappropriate”), trans. denied), trans. denied.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019                             Page 6 of 7
    [14]   Affirmed.
    May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019   Page 7 of 7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19A-CR-108

Filed Date: 5/29/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/29/2019