HAGENSEE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Justin A. Hagensee pleaded guilty to one count of Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun with a prior felony conviction after an officer saw a firearm in Hagensee's car during a traffic stop.

[2] Hagensee appeals his six-year sentence, asking this Court to exercise its authority to reduce it. Concluding that Hagensee has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Early in the morning on December 20, 2023, a police officer pulled over a car in Lake County. The car's license plate light was broken. Hagensee was driving, and the officer recognized him from prior interactions. The officer knew that Hagensee was a convicted felon and had active warrants for his arrest. Hagensee admitted that he had four warrants for his arrest, and the officer handcuffed him.

[4] During the arrest, the officer looked in Hagensee's car and saw a rifle in plain view, behind the driver's seat. Hagensee acknowledged there was a firearm in his car, stating a friend had left it there. During a search incident to arrest, the officer found a plastic baggie in Hagensee's pockets. The baggie contained a white crystal-like substance that field-tested positive as methamphetamine. Next, the officer searched the car and found twelve rounds of live ammunition in the cup holder of the central console.

[5] The State charged Hagensee with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. Hagensee was released on bond, but the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest after he failed to appear for a pretrial hearing. He was taken into custody.

[6] The parties negotiated a plea agreement, which included a stipulation of facts.¹ Pursuant to the agreement, the State amended the charging information to add a charge of Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun with a prior felony conviction. Hagensee agreed to plead guilty to that offense, and the State agreed to dismiss the other two charges. The State also agreed to dismiss eight other pending cases against Hagensee. Sentencing would be left to the trial court.

[7] The court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Hagensee to six years. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Hagensee argues that his sentence should be reduced to four years, with a referral to a therapeutic community for substance addiction treatment. Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise sentences. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) implements this authority, stating that this Court may revise a sentence “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.”

[9] The principal role of appellate review under Rule 7(B) is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Anderson v. State, 251 N.E.3d 1066, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. As a result, when conducting our review we do not ask “ ‘whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.’ ” Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). We generally defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court. Skeens v. State, 191 N.E.3d 916, 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). A grant of relief under Rule 7(B) is reserved “for exceptional cases.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 613 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).

[10] “We may look at any factors appearing in the record when assessing the nature of the offense and character of the offender.” Zamilpa v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1079, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “The defendant bears the burden of persuading us a revised sentence is warranted.” Anderson, 251 N.E.3d at 1089.

[11] “When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Dean v. State, 222 N.E.3d 976, 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. At the time Hagensee committed his offenses, the advisory sentence for a Level 5 felony was three years, with a maximum of six years and a minimum of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2014). The trial court sentenced Hagensee to six years. “The maximum possible sentences are generally most appropriate for the worst offenders.” Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. “But this encompasses a considerable variety of offenses and offenders.” Id.

[12] “Our analysis of the ‘nature of the offense’ requires us to look at the nature, extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense.” Dean, 222 N.E.3d at 990. Hagensee argues that “the facts stipulated to by the parties fail to exceed the elements of the offense to which [he] pled and fail to support the imposition of any sentence above the advisory of three years.” Appellant's Br. p. 5. But we may also consider the facts set forth in the probable cause affidavit. And Hagensee conceded during the traffic stop that there were four active warrants for his arrest. It reflects poorly on Hagensee that he committed the current felony despite facing serious legal jeopardy in multiple jurisdictions. In addition, at the time of his arrest he possessed a substance that field-tested positive for methamphetamine.

[13] Turning to the character of the offender, our analysis “involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse.” Dean, 222 N.E.3d at 990-91. Hagensee was thirty-six years old at sentencing, and he has an extensive criminal history across three states. He has felony convictions for burglary and possession of a narcotic drug.²

[14] Hagensee also has twenty-two prior misdemeanor convictions, including repeat convictions for theft, possession of marijuana, and resisting arrest. Since becoming an adult, he has been unable to go longer than two or three years without accruing a new criminal conviction. In addition, as part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to dismiss two other felony charges in this case and eight other pending cases, three of which involved felony charges. In sum, Hagensee has not been deterred from frequent lawbreaking despite an overwhelming number of contacts with the criminal justice system.

[15] Hagensee has been placed on probation three times, and his placement was revoked once. And he was on probation when he committed the current offense. In addition, he was released on bond in this case, and the trial court issued a bench warrant after he failed to appear for a hearing. It does not appear Hagensee would benefit from alternatives to incarceration.

[16] Hagensee argues that his lengthy criminal record is related to his untreated substance addiction issues. He has used a variety of controlled substances since he was a child. But, by his own admission, Hagensee completed substance abuse treatment in 2019 and continued to use drugs. His failure to take advantage of treatment does not reflect well on his character. See Moyer v. State, 83 N.E.3d 136, 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (defendant's sentence not inappropriate; defendant failed to seek out substance abuse treatment for longstanding addiction issues), trans. denied. Considering both the nature of the offense and his character, Hagensee has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate and merits revision.

Conclusion

[17] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Nothing in the plea agreement limited the trial court to considering only the facts presented in that document. As a result, we may also consider the statements in the probable cause affidavit. See Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (unless parties bargain in plea agreements for language excluding specific circumstances of an offense from trial court consideration, “it is not necessary for a trial court to turn a blind eye to the facts of the incident that brought the defendant before them”).

2.   The latter conviction was the predicate offense for Hagensee's current conviction of possession of a firearm with a prior felony.

Robb, Senior Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.