HUNT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Christopher Wayne Hunt appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violation of probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In October 2022, the State charged Hunt with Level 6 felony domestic battery. In February 2023, Hunt pled guilty and was sentenced to 540 days, with 90 days to serve in jail and 450 days suspended to probation. Three months later, in May, the State sought to revoke Hunt's probation for failing to comply with several of his probation conditions. A fact-finding hearing was held in October 2023, but Hunt failed to appear. The trial court conducted the hearing in his absence and found that he violated three terms of his probation: (1) he tested positive for THC and cocaine, (2) he did not report to probation, and (3) he did not enroll in a domestic-violence program. The court revoked Hunt's probation, issued a warrant for his arrest, and said it would hold a sanctions hearing once the warrant was served.

[3] In the meantime, Hunt went to Tennessee, where he was arrested for domestic battery in January 2024 and pled guilty later that month.

[4] The warrant in this case wasn't served until January 2025. The next month, the trial court held a combined sanctions hearing in this case and sentencing hearing for Hunt's theft conviction in Cause No. 50D03-2212-F5-64.¹ At the combined hearing, the court discussed aggravators for both cases. For some aggravators, the court explained that they applied to the probation-revocation case only, and for other aggravators, the court said they applied to both cases. The court also discussed the facts of F5-64 and found aggravating that Hunt had been living with the victim of his theft conviction and violated that person's trust by stealing from him. In F5-64, the court sentenced Hunt to six years. In this case, the court—highlighting that Hunt's fleeing to Tennessee while this case was pending was a “very, very compelling” aggravator, Tr. Vol. II p. 34—ordered him to serve his entire suspended sentence of 450 days in prison. The court ordered the two sentences to be served consecutively.

[5] The trial court issued written sentencing orders in each case. In this case, the order lists four aggravators:

1. The Defendant's criminal history and range of offenses.

2. Conduct of fleeing while facing a fact-finding.

3. The act of leaving the state without permission from the Probation Department.

4. Commission of new domestic violence in another state while on probation for a conviction of domestic violence.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 133 (numbering added).

[6] Hunt now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Hunt contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve his entire suspended sentence of 450 days in prison for violating his probation. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for probation violations, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[8] Hunt argues that the trial court abused its discretion at the sentencing hearing by “blending” aggravators from both cases and not more “cleanly” delineating the aggravators for each case. Appellant's Br. p. 7. Specifically, he claims that the court “seemed to apply” the trust-violation aggravator from F5-64 to this case. Id. Not so. First, it's clear from the fact that the court was discussing the facts of the theft case that this aggravator only applied to F5-64. Moreover, as detailed above, the court's written sentencing order lists four aggravators, none of which include the trust-violation aggravator. To the extent Hunt argues that the trust-violation aggravator from F5-64 “seemed to color” the court's decision to order him to serve his entire suspended sentence in this case, again we disagree. Id. The court made clear that Hunt's fleeing to Tennessee in the middle of the probation-revocation proceedings was a key factor in ordering him to serve his entire suspended sentence. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In F5-64, Hunt was charged with Level 5 felony theft of a firearm in December 2022. A jury trial was held in January 2024, but Hunt failed to appear. Hunt was tried in absentia and found guilty. The trial court entered judgment of conviction and said it would hold a sentencing hearing once an arrest warrant was served. That warrant was also served in January 2025.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.