Jeffery A. Hmurovic, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 45A03-1612-CR-2886

Defendant Jeffery A. Hmurovic was convicted of incest (Class C) after earlier convictions including a Class B sexual misconduct conviction were partly reversed on appeal; remanded for resentencing on the Class C conviction.
Victim (E.H.) is his daughter; sexual relationship occurred over many years, beginning in adolescence and continuing into adulthood; the daughter became pregnant and DNA confirmed Hmurovic as the father.
Original sentencing merged some counts and imposed consecutive terms totaling 21 years; appellate court reversed the Class B conviction and remanded for resentencing on the remaining Class C conviction.
On resentencing the trial court imposed 7.5 years executed (an increase over the originally imposed 6-year term for the Class C count alone but well below the original aggregate sentence).
At both sentencing hearings the trial court found multiple aggravators (dishonesty/manipulativeness, violation of trust, victim pregnancy, long duration of abuse) and no mitigating factors of significance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hmurovic)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find significant mitigating circumstances and by relying on aggravators unsupported by the record	Trial court properly considered record, found no significant mitigation, and had support for aggravators	Court ignored mitigators: lack of prior record, positive work evaluations, and argued some aggravators ("abuse", duration) were unsupported	No abuse of discretion: court acknowledged lack of criminal history, reasonably found it insignificant; work evaluations not shown to be significant; aggravators supported by record
Whether the 7.5-year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	Sentence is appropriate given offense severity and offender character	Sentence is inappropriate: points to conduct occurring after victim turned 18 and other facts that allegedly lessen culpability	Sentence not inappropriate; defendant failed to carry heavy burden to show it was unjust given repeated, manipulative exploitation and harm caused

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing decisions and when a trial court abuses discretion)
Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
Sanjari v. State, 981 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court flexibility on remand to adjust individual sentences absent vindictive sentencing presumption)
Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (limits on appellate review of the weight assigned to mitigators)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose of appellate review under App. R. 7(B) to correct outlier sentences)
Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015) (deference owed to trial court sentencing decisions)
Scott v. State, 840 N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court’s expertise in sentencing)
Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (appellant’s burden to overcome deference with compelling evidence)
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate)