Austin Jay Huffman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
76A03-1609-CR-2186
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- On Jan. 14, 2016, Austin J. Huffman possessed pseudoephedrine without a prescription; he pleaded guilty to possession of a precursor by a methamphetamine offender (Level 6 felony).
- Two years earlier he had a conviction for possession of two or more precursors with intent to manufacture.
- The State also charged theft based on alleged return of stolen Sudafed for store credit to buy precursors; that count was dismissed as part of the plea and Huffman paid restitution.
- Sentencing was left to the trial court; the court found Huffman’s guilty plea mitigating but his extensive juvenile and adult criminal history (multiple felonies, misdemeanors, probation revocations, and pending felony/misdemeanor charges) aggravating.
- The court imposed the maximum Level 6 felony sentence of 2.5 years and recommended participation in a therapeutic community program; Huffman appealed, arguing the sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huffman’s 2.5‑year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given Huffman’s extensive juvenile and adult criminal history, probation revocations, pending felony charges, and pattern of drug-related offending | Maximum sentence is inappropriate: offense is not unusually egregious and Huffman is not among the worst offenders | Affirmed: sentence is not inappropriate; offender’s character justified the maximum Level 6 term |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635 (Ind. 2017) (explaining Appellate Rule 7(B) standard for reviewing sentence appropriateness)
- Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 1997) (maximum sentences should be reserved for the very worst offenders)
- Davis v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (appellate court defers to trial court’s sentencing expertise)
- Knight v. State, 930 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. 2010) (appellate courts have constitutional authority to review sentences independently)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence is the starting point for appellate review of sentencing)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (defendant must show sentence inappropriate in light of both character and nature of offense)