HUNTINGTON v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] While Austin P. Huntington, Jr., was on probation for a Level 4 felony, he was arrested and charged with Level 5 felony intimidation. He was convicted of intimidation, found to have violated his probation by committing intimidation, and sentenced to twelve years. He now appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2018, Huntington pled guilty to Level 4 felony burglary in Cause No. 15C01-1805-F4-7 and was sentenced to twelve years with seven years suspended to probation.

[3] One morning in July 2023, while Huntington was on probation in the burglary case, Jana Jones was working at a gas station in Moores Hill when a customer came inside and told her there was a suspicious person outside. Jones called 911. While officers were on their way, Huntington entered the store.

[4] Another customer, Greg Benning, followed Huntington through the door. While Benning went to the back of the store to grab a drink, Huntington approached the counter and started yelling, throwing his hands in the air, and hitting his chest. He “kept saying that he was going to bomb the place” and “shoot” everyone. Tr. Vol. III p. 12. When Benning approached the counter from the back of the store, he heard Jones say in a scared voice, “I don't know you. I didn't do anything. Why are you doing this?” Tr. Vol. II p. 229.

[5] Chris Doherty, who had entered the store after Huntington, approached the counter with his items and heard Huntington say, “The Lord will forgive me, but I must take both your lives.” Id. at 247. Huntington then exited the store.

[6] Benning saw Huntington through the front door with a “knife” or “[s]ome sort of sword.” Id. at 232; see also id. at 215 (describing it as a “longer knife or sword” with some “heft”). Benning shouted that Huntington had a knife and ran behind the counter where Jones was standing just as Huntington reentered the store. Meanwhile, Doherty exited the store through the back door to go home to get his gun. When Doherty left through the back door, it triggered a buzzer, which “agitated” Huntington. Tr. Vol. III p. 16.

[7] Huntington started waving the knife around and yelling that he was going to “kill everybody” and “blow this place up.” Tr. Vol. II p. 233. This went on for several minutes. At one point, Huntington went “around the counter,” “jabbed” the knife at Jones, and told her that he would “stab” and “kill” her. Tr. Vol. III pp. 17, 36. He also told her he would “come back” for her. Id. at 34. Jones, who was scared for her life, “begg[ed]” Huntington not to do anything. Id. at 18.

[8] A police officer arrived before Doherty and took Huntington into custody. The State charged Huntington with Level 5 felony intimidation with a deadly weapon. In addition, in F4-7, the State alleged that Huntington violated his probation by committing this new offense. A jury trial was held in October 2023, and the jury found Huntington guilty of intimidation. Later that month, a fact-finding hearing was held in F4-7, and the trial court found that Huntington violated his probation. A joint sentencing hearing was held, and the court issued a thorough, eight-page sentencing order. It found five aggravators and one mitigator:

The only mitigator presented is that the Defendant suffers from some mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. The Court will find this as a mitigator but gives it little weight because he has not been diagnosed with a mental illness or disease. Additionally, given his significant illicit drug use of marijuana and methamphetamine as a youth, any cognitive decline that he may suffer from may be the result of his criminal activity in the regular use of marijuana and methamphetamine. Regardless, there is insufficient evidence to establish any mental illness as a significant mitigating factor, but the Court will consider his self-diagnosis of anxiety and depression as a mitigating factor.

Appellant's App. Vol. III p. 219. For Huntington's intimidation conviction, the court sentenced him to five years. For his probation violation, the court ordered him to serve his entire suspended sentence of seven years. The court ordered the terms to be served consecutively, for a total of twelve years in prison.

[9] Huntington now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. The evidence is sufficient to support Huntington's intimidation conviction

[10] Huntington contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Level 5 felony intimidation. When reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We will only consider the evidence supporting the conviction and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[11] To convict Huntington of Level 5 felony intimidation as charged here, the State had to prove that he, while using or drawing a deadly weapon, communicated a threat to unlawfully injure Jones with the intent that she be placed in fear that the threat would be carried out. Appellant's App. Vol. III p. 83; Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(4)(A), (b)(2)(A), (c)(1). Huntington argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he intended for Jones to be placed in fear that the threat would be carried out. He claims his words were “a stream of conscious rant with nobody particularly in mind and with no real purpose than to demonstrate [his] generalized frustration and anger.” Appellant's Br. pp. 9-10.

[12] The evidence shows that when Huntington first entered the store, he approached Jones at the counter and said he was going to bomb the place and shoot everyone. Huntington briefly left the store and then reentered with a knife and started waving it around. At one point, he went “around the counter,” “jabbed” the knife at Jones, and told her that he would “stab” and “kill” her. He also told Jones that he would “come back” for her. Jones, who was scared for her life, begged Huntington not to do anything. The jury could easily infer from this evidence that Huntington intended for Jones to be placed in fear that the threat would be carried out. We therefore affirm Huntington's conviction for intimidation.¹

II. Huntington's sentencing challenge fails

[13] Huntington also challenges his sentence. First, he contends the trial court did not give “sufficient weight” to the mitigator that he has mental-health issues. Appellant's Br. p. 12. While the finding of mitigators is subject to abuse-of-discretion review, see Wert v. State, 121 N.E.3d 1079, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied, the weight that a trial court gives to a mitigator is not, see Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007) (“The relative weight or value assignable to reasons [for imposing a particular sentence] ․ is not subject to review for abuse.”), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not giving Huntington's mental-health issues more weight.

[14] Second, Huntington contends his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Huntington acknowledges that Rule 7(B)’s review-and-revise remedy is not available for the seven-year sanction he received for violating his probation (and he doesn't separately challenge that sanction). Thus, he only alleges that his five-year sentence for intimidation is inappropriate.

[15] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory term of three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial court sentenced Huntington to an above-advisory term of five years.

[16] Tellingly, Huntington's inappropriateness argument does not address the nature of the offense. This is likely for good reason. Huntington waved a “sword” around for several minutes and threatened to kill Jones. As the trial court explained, Huntington “appeared to take particular enjoyment out of terrorizing Ms. Jones,” which “could be heard in real time on the 911 call.” Appellant's App. Vol. III p. 215. Nothing about the nature of the offense warrants a revision in Huntington's sentence.

[17] As for Huntington's character, the record shows that he has prior convictions for Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Level 4 felony burglary. He was also on probation when he committed this offense. As the trial court noted, Huntington, who was then twenty-six years old, has “spent a majority of his adult life in prison and shows no inclination to change his behavior and conform to the rules of society.” Id. at 216. We acknowledge, as did the trial court, that Huntington has some mental-health issues. But given the lack of information in the record about these issues, Huntington has failed to persuade us that his below-maximum sentence for intimidation is inappropriate.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Huntington also argues that the trial court “erred in finding that [he] had violated his previously imposed term o[f] probation on the basis of the [intimidation] conviction.” Appellant's Br. 10. Because we find the evidence sufficient to sustain his intimidation conviction, this argument necessarily fails.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.