John Ward Hunt v. State
05-16-00605-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- John Ward Hunt, operator of Hunt Advisors LLC, was convicted in five misapplication-of-fiduciary-property cases (three first-degree felonies; two state-jail felonies) arising from his management of several investors’ accounts; total restitution ordered was $1,786,227.13.
- Complainants (Ahee/Barbara Anderl, Sandra Burns and Burns Family Trust, and Danna Campbell) entrusted Hunt with IRAs/individual accounts after referrals; they testified they wanted balanced, conservative treatment for retirement/IRA funds.
- Hunt traded largely in high-risk stock options, made substantial losses in the clients’ accounts, and in some instances withdrew performance fees up front contrary to written agreements.
- Texas State Securities Board investigation found Hunt ran a hedge fund, charged fees not authorized by agreements, and revoked his adviser registrations; forensic accounting quantified losses and unauthorized fees.
- At trial juries convicted Hunt on all counts; sentences imposed matched jury recommendations (including suspended ten-year terms with community supervision on first-degree felonies and one-year terms on state-jail felonies).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree convictions (Ahee, Campbell) | State: evidence shows Hunt misapplied funds contrary to clients’ objectives and agreements | Hunt: clients gave him full discretionary authority and their account forms authorized speculative, high‑risk trading | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jury could credit clients’ testimony that IRAs/accounts were to be conservatively managed and Hunt acted contrary to those agreements |
| Double jeopardy as to state‑jail convictions (Ahee, Burns) | Hunt: convictions for state‑jail offenses duplicate punishments for related first‑degree offenses | State: indictments allege different victims/property and different agreements; issues not preserved below | Affirmed — no double jeopardy; separate victims/properties and separate agreements support distinct offenses; claim not preserved on appeal |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment (state‑jail cases) | Hunt: counsel failed to object to erroneous jury charge (good‑time instruction) and failed to present Hunt’s health evidence | State: error not harmful; record silent on counsel’s strategy; claim not shown on record | Affirmed — Strickland not satisfied; no demonstrated prejudice from charge error and record does not show deficient strategy regarding health evidence |
| Violation of common‑law right to allocute / grossly disproportionate sentences | Hunt: denied right to allocute to present health mitigation; sentences grossly disproportionate | State: court complied with statutory allocution; issues not preserved | Affirmed — allocution claim not preserved (no request/objection); disproportionality claim not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- Ex parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d 540 (raising double jeopardy for first time on appeal — requirements)
- Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54 (framework for multiple‑punishments double jeopardy analysis)
- Merryman v. State, 391 S.W.3d 261 (misapplication offense elements/analysis)
- Bynum v. State, 767 S.W.2d 769 (agreement defines fiduciary duty)
- Wilson v. State, 448 S.W.3d 418 (applying Jackson sufficiency standard in Texas)
- Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (jury as sole judge of credibility)
- Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal require record support)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (records must affirmatively demonstrate ineffectiveness)
- Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (definition of reasonable probability/prejudice)
- Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (declining to speculate about counsel’s strategy)
- Eisen v. State, 40 S.W.3d 628 (allocution explained)
- Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (preservation requirement for disproportionality claims)