HUNT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Christopher Wayne Hunt was convicted of Level 5 felony theft of a firearm and sentenced to six years. He now appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In October 2022, Dwayne Benac allowed Hunt and Kimberlie Wright to live on his Marshall County property. At that time, Benac owned a Bushmaster rifle. On October 17, he contacted the police to report his rifle stolen. The police entered the rifle's serial number into state and national databases as stolen. Later, the police learned that Benac's rifle had been sold to a pawn shop in Mishawaka. The police went to the pawn shop and reviewed the records from the transaction, including surveillance video and the identification card provided, and discovered that Hunt had sold the rifle to the pawn shop on October 11. See Exs. 2-3. During an interview with the police, Hunt admitted pawning the rifle. However, he claimed he didn't steal the rifle but purchased it from “an older gentleman.” Tr. p. 66. Hunt said he purchased the rifle for approximately $600-650 and then sold it to the pawn shop for around $250, which the officer said did “not make sense.” Id. at 67.

[3] The State charged Hunt with Level 5 felony theft of a firearm, and he was released on bond. A jury trial was held in January 2024, but Hunt failed to appear and was tried in absentia. Benac testified that he didn't sell his rifle or give anyone permission to take it. The jury found Hunt guilty as charged. The trial court entered judgment of conviction and said it would hold a sentencing hearing once Hunt was taken into custody.

[4] Hunt wasn't arrested until January 2025. The next month, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Evidence was presented that Hunt had fled to Tennessee, where he was arrested for domestic battery in January 2024 and pled guilty later that month. The court found no mitigators and five aggravators: (1) Hunt's prior criminal history (one felony and three misdemeanors); (2) his previous probation violations; (3) his lack of remorse; (4) his fleeing to Tennessee during the pendency of this case; and (5) his commission of a new crime in Tennessee. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 180.¹ The court acknowledged that the State requested a sentence of five years and the probation department recommended four years. Nevertheless, it found “very, very compelling” that Hunt “fled the jurisdiction of the court” and sentenced him to six years. Tr. p. 130.

[5] Hunt now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. The evidence is sufficient to support Hunt's theft conviction

[6] Hunt contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. 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 consider only the evidence supporting the conviction and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. We will affirm a conviction 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.

[7] Hunt concedes that the evidence establishes that he sold Benac's rifle to the pawn shop. However, he argues that the evidence is insufficient “to prove that it was Mr. Hunt (and not someone else like Wright), who had initially committed the theft of the firearm.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. As the State responds, this is a clear request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we don't do. Hunt told the police that he didn't steal the rifle but purchased it from “an older gentleman” and then pawned it. Benac testified that Hunt had been living with him at the time and that he didn't sell his rifle or give anyone permission to take it. The jury also heard Hunt's odd claim that he bought the rifle for $600-650 but then pawned it for only $250. The jury reasonably inferred from this evidence that Hunt was the one who took the rifle from Benac and then sold it to the pawn shop. We therefore affirm Hunt's conviction for theft of a firearm.

II. Hunt has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate

[8] Hunt also contends that his six-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise it to four years 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.” The court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[9] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial court sentenced Hunt to the maximum term of six years.

[10] Hunt claims that there is nothing about the nature of his theft offense that makes it “stand out in any significant way.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. Even accepting that as true, Hunt's character supports his sentence. Hunt, who had been released on bond, didn't show up to his January 2024 jury trial. Instead, he fled to Tennessee, where he committed a new crime.

[11] Hunt points out that he has substance-abuse issues. The trial court recognized as much. Specifically, the court said it had been prepared to find as an aggravator Hunt's “extensive substance use history with no meaningful efforts to reform”; however, it changed its mind upon hearing Hunt's statements during allocution that he had recently sought treatment. Tr. p. 128. As a result, the court said it was recommending Hunt “for the Recovery While Incarcerated program and any other treatment programs offered by the Department of Correction[ ].” Id.; see also Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 181. Hunt also emphasizes that his prior criminal history wasn't “incredibly extensive,” and he hadn't served any time in prison. Appellant's Br. p. 10. Again, the court agreed with Hunt that his criminal history was “not extensive” but found most compelling that he had fled the court's jurisdiction and went to Tennessee, where he committed a new crime. Tr. p. 130. We agree with the trial court that these actions support the maximum sentence in this case.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the trial court's written sentencing order doesn't list it, the court orally found as an aggravator that Hunt violated Benac's trust. See Tr. pp. 131, 133.

Vaidik, Judge.

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