Jeffery J. Hunt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 788
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 4, 2013, Jeffery Hunt and his father forced entry into Don and Joan Neer’s home; Hunt assaulted 82-year-old Don Neer with a tire iron, causing lacerations and three fractured cervical vertebrae.
- The Neers were restrained; the perpetrators stole guns, a TV, and cash; Mr. Neer required medical care and postponed surgery; Mrs. Neer suffered ongoing emotional trauma.
- Hunt was charged with: Count I — Class A robbery while armed causing serious bodily injury; Count II — Class A burglary; Count III — Class B conspiracy to commit burglary; Count IV — Class B criminal confinement.
- Hunt pleaded guilty to all counts (no plea agreement). At sentencing the trial court found mitigation (guilty plea, age 26) but multiple aggravators (prior burglaries, multiple and elderly victims, severe injuries, denial of medical care, high risk to reoffend).
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 50 years (Count I), 50 years (Count II), 20 years (Count IV), with Count III concurrent to IV — aggregate 120 years.
- On appeal under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), the Court of Appeals concluded the 120-year aggregate was an outlier and reduced the two Class A sentences to the statutory advisory (30 years each), leaving the Class B terms at 20 years each, all consecutive — aggregate 100 years; reversed and remanded for an amended sentencing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hunt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 120-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | The sentence is supported by aggravators (serious injury, elderly victims, criminal history, risk to reoffend) and trial court discretion | The aggregate 120-year sentence is excessive given offense and offender characteristics; urges reduction | Court found the 120-year term an outlier and inappropriate and reduced aggregate to 100 years (Class A terms to 30 yrs each; Class B terms unchanged) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (rejects appellate goals of achieving a single "correct" sentence; guides 7(B) review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Knight v. State, 930 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. 2010) (comparison to similar cases is permissible but not required in 7(B) review)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (principle of imposing similar sentences for similar offenders and acts)
- Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (courts must give due deference to trial court sentencing decisions)
- Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (7(B) asks whether a sentence is inappropriate, not whether another would be better)
- Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses appellate review role in leveling outlier sentences)
- Bushhorn v. State, 971 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. 2012) (example of aggregate long sentence affirmed in serious multi-count case)
- Joseph v. State, 975 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (example of lower aggregate sentence in similar violent burglary/confinement context)