Eric D. Huffman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 21 2017, 8:58 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jeremy K. Nix Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Huntington, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Eric D. Huffman, November 21, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
90A04-1707-CR-1683
v. Appeal from the Wells Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kenton W.
Appellee-Plaintiff Kiracofe, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
90C01-1512-F4-13
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 1 of 8
[1] Eric Huffman appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he was
convicted of Level 4 Felony Burglary,1 Level 4 Felony Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm by a Serious Violent Felon,2 and Level 6 Felony Theft,3 and was found
to be an Habitual Offender.4 Huffman argues that the trial court erred by
increasing the habitual offender enhancement after this Court remanded for
resentencing following Huffman’s first appeal and that the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Finding
no error and that the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On December 28, 2015, Huffman was driving a white pick-up truck belonging
to his ex-girlfriend, Cinda Sweeden. Sweeden, her four-year-old son, and
Huffman’s wife, Danielle Huffman (Danielle), were also in the vehicle.
Huffman told the other occupants of the vehicle that he needed to make a few
stops.
[3] At a trailer in the country outside of Montpelier, Huffman went in the front
door and exited through the back door, emerging carrying a small flat-screen
television, which he placed in the truck. He kept driving north and stopped at a
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
2
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.
3
I.C. § 35-43-4-2.
4
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 2 of 8
house on State Road 218. The house belongs to Donald Burns, whom
Huffman knew because he used to date Burns’s aunt; Huffman had spent time
in the home in the past. He entered the garage attached to the house and broke
the glass in the door leading into the residence. He then entered the residence,
stealing a large flat-screen television and five firearms. Huffman then drove
away, planning to sell the firearms for cash at a pawn shop. Burns’s brother
saw the truck leaving Burns’s property, noticed that the glass in the door was
broken, and notified law enforcement. Eventually, law enforcement identified
Huffman as the burglar.
[4] On December 30, 2015, the State charged Huffman with multiple offenses,
which were ultimately amended to include charges for Level 4 felony burglary,
Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and
Level 6 felony theft, as well as an allegation that Huffman is an habitual
offender. Huffman’s bifurcated jury trial took place on October 24 and 25,
2016. On the second day of trial, Huffman removed his leg restraints during
lunch and fled the courthouse. He encountered a private citizen, struck that
person with a tool, and attempted to steal that person’s vehicle before he was
finally apprehended.5 After the trial was complete, the jury found him guilty as
charged and Huffman admitted to being a serious violent felon and an habitual
offender.
5
Huffman was ultimately convicted of Level 2 felony escape and Level 2 felony kidnapping as a result of this
incident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 3 of 8
[5] On November 23, 2016, the trial court sentenced Huffman to twelve years for
burglary, enhanced by fifteen years for the habitual offender adjudication; two
and one-half years for theft; and twelve years for unlawful possession of a
firearm. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for an
aggregate sentence of forty-one and one-half years imprisonment.
[6] Huffman appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering
his sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and
his enhanced sentence for burglary to be served consecutively. Huffman v. State,
No. 90A02-1612-CR-2791 (Ind. Ct. App. May 9, 2017). The State conceded,
and this Court agreed, that the trial court erred:
The finding that Huffman was an habitual offender was based in
part on his prior escape conviction; his status as a serious violent
felon was based on that same escape conviction. Because the
enhancements of two separate counts were based on the same
prior conviction, ordering the sentences to be served
consecutively constitutes an improper double enhancement.
Id. at *2. Consequently, this Court reversed and remanded “to resentence
Huffman to concurrent terms on the burglary and unlawful possession counts
so as to alleviate the double enhancement.” Id.[7] On remand, the trial court held a new sentencing hearing on July 28, 2017. It
resentenced Huffman as follows: twelve years for burglary, enhanced by twenty
years for the habitual offender adjudication; two and one-half years for theft;
and twelve years for unlawful possession by a serious violent felon. The trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 4 of 8
court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence
of thirty-two years imprisonment. Huffman now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Increase of Habitual Offender Enhancement
[8] Huffman first argues that the trial court erred by increasing the habitual
offender enhancement from fifteen to twenty years on resentencing. As a
general rule, a trial court may not impose a “greater sentence” on a criminal
defendant after a successful appeal of his conviction. Owens v. State, 916 N.E.2d
913, 916 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). This rule does not apply, however, where “‘an
aggregate sentence is reduced, but some of the interdependent sentences in a
sentencing package are increased following a successful appeal of some of the
individual counts.’” Id. (quoting In re Craig, 571 N.E.2d 1326, 1328-29 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In other words, “[w]e join
with those courts who allow the trial court flexibility upon remand, including
the ability to increase sentences for individual convictions . . . , so long as the
aggregate sentence is no longer than originally imposed.” Sanjari v. State, 981
N.E.2d 578, 583 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[9] In this case, while the trial court increased the habitual offender enhancement
from fifteen to twenty years, the aggregate sentence decreased from forty-one
and one-half years to thirty-two years imprisonment. Because the aggregate
sentence was reduced, Huffman’s argument is unavailing. See id. at 583 (noting
that when one component part of a sentence is altered, “‘common sense
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 5 of 8
dictates that the judge should be free to . . . reconstruct the sentencing
architecture upon remand, . . . if that appears necessary in order to ensure that
the punishment still fits both the crime and criminal’”) (quoting United States v.
Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1989)).
II. Appropriateness
[10] Huffman also contends that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offenses and his character pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). In
considering an argument under Rule 7(B), we must “conduct [this] review with
substantial deference and give ‘due consideration’ to the trial court’s decision—
since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and
not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence . . . .” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d
1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind.
2013)) (internal citations omitted).
[11] Huffman was convicted of two Level 4 felonies and one Level 6 felony and was
found to be an habitual offender. For the Level 4 felony convictions, he faced a
sentence of two to twelve years imprisonment, with an advisory term of six
years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court imposed a maximum twelve-year term
for each of these convictions. For the Level 6 felony conviction, Huffman faced
a sentence of six months to two and one-half years imprisonment, with an
advisory term of one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court imposed a
maximum term of two and one-half years. For the habitual offender
adjudication, Huffman faced a sentence enhancement of six to twenty years,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 6 of 8
I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(1); on remand, he received a maximum twenty-year
enhancement. As noted above, the trial court ordered all sentences to be served
concurrently, for an aggregate term of thirty-two years imprisonment.
[12] As for the nature of Huffman’s offenses, he burglarized a residence while his
wife, ex-girlfriend, and ex-girlfriend’s four-year-old son were present. After
stealing a television and five firearms, which he knew he could not possess
because he was a convicted felon, he tried to pawn the firearms for cash.
[13] As for Huffman’s character, in addition to placing innocent people at risk
during the commission of these crimes, while awaiting trial he tried to convince
his wife to state falsely that she committed the burglary. And on the second day
of trial, he absconded and assaulted a private citizen; as a result, he was
convicted of two Level 2 felonies prior to the resentencing in this case.
[14] Moreover, Huffman has a lengthy and serious criminal history. In addition to
two juvenile adjudications and two misdemeanor convictions, he has amassed
six felony convictions, including Class C felony burglary, Class D felony theft,
Class C felony escape, and Class D felony strangulation. At the time of
Huffman’s original sentencing in this case, he had three cases pending in
addition to the case stemming from his escape during trial: burglary and theft;
theft; and prisoner in possession of a deadly weapon. He has had the benefit of
shorter and longer sentences, probation, and parole, but shows no willingness
or ability to respect the well-being of his fellow citizens or the rule of law.
Under these circumstances, we do not find the aggregate thirty-two-year
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 7 of 8
sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and Huffman’s
character.
[15] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1707-CR-1683 | November 21, 2017 Page 8 of 8