HALL v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jesse W. Hall appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to modify his sentence. Hall raises one issue for our review, which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 5, 2020, Hall's girlfriend, S.S., reported to police that Hall had “tried to kill her” the previous night. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 72. She further reported that she and Hall had gotten into a fight and that Hall had pointed a gun “directly at her” and “pulled the trigger,” but that the “weapon clicked but did not go off.” Id. S.S. also stated that Hall had pointed a firearm at her young daughter. And S.S. reported that Hall grabbed her by the neck and took her into the garage and that she believed Hall was going to kill her there. S.S. informed police that she was able to leave the house on the morning of March 5 when she took her daughter to school. Following S.S.’s report, officers went to Hall's home, but Hall was not cooperative. Ultimately, nine hours after officers arrived, Hall surrendered.

[3] The State charged Hall with one count of criminal confinement, as a Level 3 felony (Count 1); one count of criminal confinement, as a Level 5 felony (Count 2); two counts of intimidation, as Level 5 felonies (Counts 3 and 4); one count of domestic battery, as a Level 6 felony (Count 5); one count of strangulation, as a Level 6 felony (Count 6); one count of criminal recklessness, as a Level 6 felony (Count 7); and two counts of pointing a firearm, as Level 6 felonies (Counts 8 and 9). On June 7, 2022, Hall and the State entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which Hall agreed to plead guilty but mentally ill to counts 1, 3, 5, and 8. The parties also agreed to a sentencing cap of nine years and that the State would dismiss the remaining counts. Following a hearing at which Hall admitted to the factual basis, the court entered judgment of conviction.

[4] At the ensuing sentencing hearing, S.S. stated that, as a result of Hall's actions, the “damages have been deep.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 33. She further stated that her life had “been placed on hold” and that she had not “felt safe to leave [her] home[.]” Id. And she reported that she had “isolated” herself “out of fear” and that she suffered from PTSD and anxiety that “are at times crippling.” Id. at 34. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sentenced Hall to an aggregate term of nine years in the Department of Correction.

[5] On March 23, 2023, Hall sent a letter to the court requesting a sentence modification. Between that date and October 14, 2024, Hall filed approximately sixty-five pro se letters and motions requesting, among others, a sentence modification and post-conviction relief. On December 12, Hall, by counsel, filed a motion to set the motion for sentence modification for a hearing.

[6] The court held a hearing on Hall's motion on June 13, 2025. During that hearing, Hall presented the testimony of several witnesses who each testified that he had changed and improved himself. In addition, Hall testified that his previous actions had been a result of his alcohol abuse but that he had completed the Recovery While Incarcerated program along with several others. The State then presented the testimony of S.S., who again testified that the damages from the night of the offense “are incredibly deep.” Id. at 94. She further testified that, since his arrest, Hall had made “multiple attempts at retaliation” against her and her family. Id.

[7] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Hall's sentence “was fair” and that justice “was served” in that sentence. Id. at 101. The court further found that Hall had “minimize[d] his actions.” Id. And the court did “not find it is in the best interest of the community or of the victim or the matter of justice” to modify Hall's sentence. Id. Accordingly, the court denied Hall's motion for sentence modification. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Hall appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a sentence modification.¹ We review a trial court's decision regarding modification of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1130, 1133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or when the court misinterprets the law. Id.

[9] Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17 provides that, at any time after a convicted person begins serving his sentence and the court obtains a report from the Department of Correction concerning his conduct while imprisoned, “the court may reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the time of sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(e). However, “if the convicted person was sentenced under the terms of a plea agreement, the court may not, without the consent of the prosecuting attorney, reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a sentence not authorized by the plea agreement.” Id. Because that statute specifies that a court “may” reduce or suspend a convicted person's sentence, the court has the discretion to deny that motion.

[10] On appeal, Hall does not make any argument in his brief to explain why the court's denial of his motion for sentence modification amounted to an abuse of discretion. Indeed, Hall focuses his argument almost entirely on whether his original sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. And while he discusses progress he has made in his sobriety and other improvements in his life, he does not discuss any of those factors in the context of a sentence modification, nor does he explain why any of those factors entitle him to a sentence modification, especially in light of the fact that he pointed a loaded gun at his girlfriend's head and pulled the trigger, grabbed her by the neck, threatened to kill her, and pointed a gun at her daughter. As such, Hall has not met his burden on appeal to show that the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that, while Hall purports to appeal following the court's denial of his motion for sentence modification, the crux of his argument is that he is filing a belated appeal of his sentence and asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. However, as Hall correctly notes, he did not follow the proper procedure for a belated appeal. Indeed, Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2(a) provides that an eligible defendant “may petition the trial court for permission to file a belated notice of appeal[.]” But there is no indication in the record that Hall sought permission from the trial court for a belated appeal. In addition, Hall makes no argument that he is an eligible defendant or that the failure to file a timely notice is not due to any fault of his or that he had been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated notice of appeal. As a result, we decline to review his purported belated appeal and will not consider whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.