Marcus Hardy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 41A01-1605-CR-1012

In August 2015 Hardy arranged a purported marijuana sale with Douglas Lane but came armed with a loaded handgun and intended to rob Lane of cash.
During the transaction Hardy displayed the gun, demanded money, and a struggle with Lane ensued; Hardy fired two shots, one fatally striking Lane in the head.
Hardy fled, returned to retrieve his duffel bag, took Lane’s phone and cash, and later attempted to sell the phone; police tracked cell phones and ultimately arrested Hardy after a chase and search that recovered the murder weapon.
Hardy was tried by a jury, convicted of murder (felony murder) and Level 3 felony armed robbery, and sentenced to 65 years (murder) and 16 years (robbery), to run concurrently — both within statutory ranges.
At sentencing Hardy claimed remorse, argued the killing was accidental (lack of intent) and that he tried to avoid harm by fleeing; the trial court found multiple aggravators (planning, bond violations, pending charges, lengthy criminal history) and no mitigators.
Hardy appealed, arguing his sentence was inappropriate and that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find as mitigating his attempt to flee to avoid harming the victim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in sentencing by not finding a mitigating factor for Hardy’s alleged attempt to flee to avoid harming the victim	State: sentence was within statutory range; trial court properly weighed aggravators and declined mitigators	Hardy: his attempt to flee showed effort to avoid harm and constituted a mitigating circumstance; also argued lack of intent/accident as mitigation	Court: No abuse of discretion. Argument waived because Hardy failed to raise fleeing-as-mitigator at sentencing; court properly declined other proffered mitigators and imposed lawful sentence

Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing and treatment of mitigators)
Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370 (Ind. 1993) (trial court not required to explain rejection of proposed mitigators)
Hollin v. State, 877 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 2007) (failing to advance a mitigator at sentencing generally waives it on appeal)
Spears v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind. 2000) (same — failure to present mitigator at sentencing precludes raising it on appeal)
Hackett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 1999) (trial court not required to accept offered mitigating circumstances)