Jeffery J. Hunt v. State of Indiana

Apr 16 2015, 9:47 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Alexander L. Hoover Gregory F. Zoeller
Law Office of Christopher D. Walter Attorney General of Indiana
Nappanee, Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeffery J. Hunt, April 16, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1408-CR-00300
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Terry Shewmaker,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff
Cause No. 20C01-1311-FA-064
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Jeffery Hunt (“Hunt”) pleaded guilty in Elkhart Circuit Court to Count I, Class
A felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon causing seriously bodily
injury; Count II, Class A felony burglary; Count III, Class B felony conspiracy
to commit burglary; and Count IV, Class B felony criminal confinement. Hunt
was sentenced to an aggregate term of 120 years executed in the Department of
Correction. Hunt appeals and argues that the 120-year sentence imposed by the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 1 of 8
trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender.
[2] We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On November 4, 2013, around 9 p.m., Hunt and his father, Jeffrey Hill (“Hill”),
knocked on the door of the New Paris residence of Don and Joan Neer. Eighty-
two year old Don Neer came to the door but refused to open it. Hunt and Hill
forced their way into the home, and Hunt struck Mr. Neer on the head with a
tire iron, then struck him several more times with the tire iron and his fists as
Mrs. Neer watched helplessly.1 As a result of the attack, Mr. Neer suffered
lacerations on his head, three fractured vertebrae in his neck, and a bruised
wrist. Hunt and Hill then forced Mr. Neer into the living room, restrained him
in a chair, and went through the house, taking guns, a television, and cash.
[4] The State charged Hunt with Count I, Class A felony robbery while armed
with a deadly weapon causing seriously bodily injury; Count II, Class A felony
burglary; Count III, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary; and Count
IV, Class B felony criminal confinement. Hunt initially pleaded not guilty, but
on June 19, 2014, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to all
four charges.
1
Hunt claims that it was his father who struck Mr. Neer with the tire iron. However, both Mr. and Mrs. Neer
stated that Hunt was the one who beat Mr. Neer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 2 of 8
[5] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on July 31, 2014. At the hearing, the
trial court considered the fact that Hunt accepted responsibility by pleading
guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement and Hunt’s age, twenty-six years,
as mitigating circumstances. The trial court then found the following
aggravating factors: Hunt’s criminal history and especially his two prior
burglary convictions, the fact that he had multiple victims, the age of the
victims, the extensive injuries suffered by Mr. Neer, the fact that Hunt failed to
seek medical attention for Mr. Neer after beating him, the fact that Hunt would
not allow Mr. Neer to take his heart medication when he needed it, and the fact
that Hunt was determined to be at a high risk to reoffend. After finding that the
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced
Hunt to fifty years for Count I, fifty years for Count II, twenty years for Count
III, and twenty years for Count IV. The sentences for Counts I, II, and IV were
to be served consecutively, and the sentence for Count III was to be served
concurrently with the sentence for Count IV, for an aggregate sentence of 120
years.
[6] Hunt now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Hunt argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule
7(B), we may revise a sentence otherwise authorized by statute if, “after due
consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 3 of 8
offender.” Although we have the power to review and revise sentences, the
principal role of our review should be to attempt to level the outliers, and
identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with
improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve what we perceive to
be a “correct” result in each case. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008)).
[8] Also, “we must and should exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing
decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give ‘due consideration’ to that
decision and because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a
trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858,
866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not
whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether
the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade us that
the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848
N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[9] In exercising our review power, we are not required to compare a defendant’s
sentence with sentences received by other defendants in similar cases. Knight v.
State, 930 N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ind. 2010). However, comparison of sentences among
those convicted of the same or similar offenses can be a proper consideration
when deciding whether a particular sentence is inappropriate. Id. Our supreme
court has stated, “Of course, a respectable legal system attempts to impose
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 4 of 8
similar sentences on perpetrators committing the same acts who have the same
backgrounds.” Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 854 (Ind. 2003).
[10] Hunt pleaded guilty to Count I, Class A felony robbery while armed with a
deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury; Count II, Class A felony
burglary; Count III, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary, and Count
IV, Class B felony criminal confinement. On the date of Hunt’s offense,2 the
sentencing range for a Class A felony was twenty to fifty years, with thirty years
being the advisory sentence. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4. The sentencing range for
a Class B felony was six to twenty years, with ten years being the advisory
sentence. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. The trial court imposed a sentence of fifty
years for Count I, fifty years for Count II, twenty years for Count III, and
twenty years for Count IV. The trial court ordered that the sentences for
Counts I, II, and IV be served consecutively and that the sentence for Count III
be served concurrently with the sentence for Count IV, for an aggregate
sentence of 120 years.3
[11] The facts in this case are undisputedly heinous; Hunt admits as much in his
brief. Hunt and his father forced their way into the residence of an elderly
2
The date of Hunt’s offense was November 4, 2013. Indiana’s revised sentencing statutes took effect on
July 1, 2014.
3
The maximum possible aggregate sentence for the four convictions was 140 years. Hunt does not challenge
his burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary convictions on double jeopardy grounds. However, even if he
did raise a double jeopardy argument, this argument would be waived. Our supreme court has held that a
defendant waives his challenge to the propriety of his convictions, including challenges on double jeopardy
grounds, when he enters a guilty plea. See Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 5 of 8
couple, who they knew were home at the time. Hunt struck Mr. Neer on the
head, mouth, and arm with a tire iron and confined the Neers in their living
room. Mr. Neer was unable to work following the break-in and had to postpone
a scheduled surgery to remove a tumor on his lungs. Mrs. Neer stated that she
has suffered emotional trauma from the attack and that, at night, she still has
visions of a hooded Hunt standing in the hallway of her home.
[12] Hunt also has a criminal history that includes juvenile adjudications in Illinois
for attempted theft and drug possession. He has previously been convicted of
burglary, residential burglary, and battery in Illinois and for operating a vehicle
never having been licensed and criminal conversion in Indiana. Hunt failed to
appear for his criminal proceedings eight different times. Despite the fact that
Hunt pleaded guilty to the crimes, he has continued to blame his father for
involving him in the crimes and claims that it was his father who beat Mr.
Neer, even though both Mr. Neer and Mrs. Neer insist that Hunt was the
person who struck Mr. Neer.
[13] However, our review of reported cases decided since adoption of the
“inappropriate” standard for reviewing sentences reveals that sentencing for
similar cases has generally ranged from twenty-six years to ninety years. See
Campbell v. State, No. 13S05-1410-PC-682, 2014 WL 5490577 (Ind. Oct. 30,
2014) (affirming ninety-year sentence for convictions for two counts of
attempted murder, Class A felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury,
Class B felony aggravated battery, and Class C felony battery); Bushhorn v. State,
971 N.E.2d 80, 81 (Ind. 2012) (forty-seven year aggregate sentence for Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 6 of 8
felony kidnapping, three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and
Class B felony attempted escape); Joseph v. State, 975 N.E.2d 420, 424 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2012) (twenty-six year aggregate sentence for Class A felony burglary
resulting in bodily injury, Class B felony attempted armed robbery, and Class B
felony criminal confinement); Kennedy v. State, 934 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010) (affirming twenty-seven year aggregate sentence with three years
suspended for convictions for Class A felony robbery and Class A felony
conspiracy to commit robbery); Upton v. State, 904 N.E.2d 700, 702 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009) (ninety-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony child
molesting and three counts of Class B felony child molesting).
[14] After surveying sentences imposed in similar cases, we conclude that Hunt’s
120-year sentence is an “outlier” that is in need of revision. To be clear, we
need not ensure that all sentences for similar acts and defendants are precisely
the same.
[15] We further note that the maximum aggregate sentence Hunt could have
received had he actually killed Mr. Neer is 113 years. See Indiana Code section
35-50-2-3(a) (“A person who commits murder shall be imprisoned for a fixed
term of between forty-five (45) and sixty-five (65) years, with the advisory
sentence being fifty-five (55) years.”).4 As heinous as Hunt's crime was, it would
4
If Hunt had killed Mr. Neer and been convicted of murder, his maximum aggregate sentence would have
been 65 years for murder, twenty years for each of the two Class B felony convictions, and eight years for
Class C felony burglary, for a total of 113 years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 7 of 8
be disproportionate5 to impose a sentence for his crime resulting in serious
bodily injury to the victim that is greater than the sentence that would be
imposed upon Hunt for killing the victim.
[16] We therefore direct that Hunt’s sentence be revised as follows: that his
sentences for his two Class A felony convictions be reduced from fifty years to
thirty years each, and his sentences for his two Class B felony convictions
remain unchanged at twenty years each, all to be served consecutively, for an
aggregate sentence of 100 years. We remand with instructions that the trial
court issue an amended sentencing order to carry out this revision.
Conclusion
[17] For all of these reasons, we conclude that Hunt’s sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender and direct
that it be revised to an aggregate term of 100 years.
[18] Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
5
Article 1, section 16 of the Indiana constitution provides that “[a]ll penalties shall be proportioned to the
nature of the offense.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1408-CR-300 | April 16, 2015 Page 8 of 8