Theron Hunter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
69A04-1608-CR-1792
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Defendant Theron Hunter pleaded guilty to a level 5 felony for failure to register as a sex offender with a prior conviction; the State dismissed a habitual-offender allegation as part of the plea agreement.
- The trial court imposed an executed six-year sentence (maximum for a level 5 felony; advisory is three years). Sentencing was discretionary.
- The court found Hunter’s extensive criminal history — including two class C child-molesting convictions and a prior failure-to-register conviction — to be a significant aggravator and noted a high risk-to-reoffend score.
- Hunter submitted a letter claiming he registered two days late due to work/stress; the court did not credit this as a meaningful mitigator, in part because it was unsworn and contradicted by his history.
- Hunter appealed under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing the sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hunter's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hunter’s six-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given Hunter’s repeated sexual offenses, prior failure to register, and high risk to reoffend | Sentence is inappropriate because the offense was minor/accidental (two-day late registration) and his guilty plea is mitigating | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; aggravators outweigh mitigators and court acted within discretion |
| Whether trial court improperly relied on prior convictions to justify an enhanced sentence | Court may consider multiple prior convictions and probation violations to assess character and risk | Hunter contended the triggering offense could not be used to enhance sentence (citing Douglas) | Held: Court did not rely solely on the triggering offense and permissibly relied on other priors and probation violation to justify above-advisory sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate on appeal)
- Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate review considers both trial-court-found and other record factors for sentence appropriateness)
- Brown v. State, 52 N.E.3d 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (factors for appropriateness include culpability, severity, and harm)
- Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225 (Ind. 2015) (appellate inquiry asks whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether a different sentence would be better)
- Blair v. State, 62 N.E.3d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
- Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (discussed by Hunter on limits of using triggering offense; court found it inapplicable here)