Jerick Hayden, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In October of 2022, Jerick Hayden and his father, Tim Hayden, went to Leah Butters's home in Clay County after Butters had vandalized Tim's home. An altercation between Butters and Tim ensued, during which Hayden shot Butters with a rifle. Butters, in response to being shot, fired her weapon at Tim, resulting in Tim's death. Butters was hospitalized for her injuries. A jury found Hayden guilty of Level 3 felony aggravated battery, and he pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer. The trial court sentenced Hayden to an aggregate sentence of fourteen years of incarceration. Hayden contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 1, 2022, at around 12:45 a.m., Butters returned to her home after she ended her relationship with Tim and did “damage” at his home while he was not there. Tr. Vol. IV p. 52. When Tim returned home with Hayden and Hayden's friend, Dakota Branham, the three observed the damage. Hayden told Branham that he was “going to say something to her” and that “[s]he messed with the wrong people[.]” Tr. Vol. III p. 172. Branham cautioned against it but entered the vehicle with Hayden and observed “two shot guns” and an SKS rifle, which had not been there previously. Tr. Vol. III p. 172. Hayden and Branham traveled to Butters's home together, while Tim drove separately in his truck.

[3] When they arrived at Butters's home, Hayden exited the vehicle and took the SKS rifle with him. Tim said, “put it away” three to four times, but Hayden did not respond in any way. Tr. Vol. III p. 175. Meanwhile, Butters, who was asleep in her bed, woke up to “[l]oud thumping music right outside” of her bedroom. Tr. Vol. IV p. 58. She heard Tim, say, “she's laying right there on the bed” and Hayden say, “I'm gonna kill the b[***]h.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 58 (quotation marks omitted). Butters tucked her .45 caliber handgun into her waistband and went outside. At some point after Butters went outside, Tim said, “She's just mad that I f[***]ed Missy[,]” and Butters slapped him. Tr. Vol. III p. 180. After slapping Tim, Butters turned around “with the intent to [․] go back in the house.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 66. Tim grabbed Butters by the hair and punched her in the face. Tim's punch broke both of Butters's eye sockets, her nose, her cheekbone, and the top of her jaw.

[4] A “split second” later, Butters felt “like a mule kicking [her] in [the] armpit” and she spun backwards, falling on her back. Tr. Vol. IV p. 67. Realizing that she had been shot, Butters retrieved her gun and released the safety. Butters observed Tim “coming back at [her and] starting to kneel down.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 70. Butters, “afraid he's going to kill [her,]” fired her weapon twice at Tim. Tr. Vol. IV p. 70. She fired the remaining four shots “across [her] feet.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 72.

[5] Butters was in a coma for four days and was in the hospital “until just before Thanksgiving.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 78. Butters's injuries, which were consistent with having been inflicted by a high-velocity weapon like a rifle, included five broken ribs, multiple fractures to her ribs, and two ribs being “completely gone.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 79. Butters's left triceps was mostly “gone” and the muscle on her shoulder was “gone.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 79. Her right buttocks “essentially got filleted open.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 79. Tim died as a result of the gunshot wounds Butters inflicted. Hayden had also been shot. At the hospital hours later, at 6:45 a.m., Hayden had an “alcohol level” of 0.065. Tr. Vol. V p. 81.

[6] On November 22, 2022, the State charged Hayden with Level 1 felony attempted murder and Class A misdemeanor unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer. A jury trial began on April 14, 2025, at the conclusion of which Hayden was found guilty of Level 3 felony aggravated battery, a lesser-included offense of attempted murder. Hayden pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer. On May 14, 2025, the trial court sentenced Hayden to an aggregate term of fourteen years of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Hayden contends that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. We initially note that Hayden's sentence was below the maximum he could have received. For a Level 3 felony, the sentencing range is between three and sixteen years, with the advisory sentence being nine years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. For a Class A misdemeanor, the maximum sentence is one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2.

[8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), trans. denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[9] The nature of the offense is “found in the details and circumstances of the commission of the offenses and the defendant's participation.” Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Furthermore, “we focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Norton v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1285, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quotation and citation omitted).

[10] Hayden contends that, although he “arrived at [Butters]’s home intoxicated and with three firearms, his actions in shooting [Butters] were not premeditated.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. He further argues that, although he “did shoot [Butters] unprovoked, the situation seemed to have gotten out of his control when [Butters] defended herself against Tim.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. We disagree with Hayden's assertion that the nature of his offenses does not support his enhanced sentence. In addition to, as Hayden concedes, arriving at Butters's home “intoxicated with three firearms,” Hayden disregarded Branham's caution against going to Butters's home, ignored Tim's instructions to put down the gun once they had arrived at Butters's home, and openly threatened to kill Butters, saying, “I'm gonna kill the b[***]h.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 58 (quotation marks omitted). Hayden proceeded to fire his weapon at Butters after Tim had punched her in the face, and Butters suffered extensive injuries as a result of Hayden shooting her. In fact, Butters was hospitalized until just before Thanksgiving, or almost two months. Based on these facts and circumstances, we conclude that Hayden's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses.

[11] Hayden also contends that his character further supports revising his sentence, pointing to his employment, that he had started a mechanic's business, and that he “is a dedicated father and husband.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. Hayden also contends that he “is at a low risk to reoffend and likely to respond affirmatively to community corrections and probation[,]” despite the fact that he had been on probation at the time of the instant offenses. Appellant's Br. pp. 10–11. We are not persuaded.

[12] Prior to the instant case, Hayden, who was twenty-three at the time, had two prior offenses relating to alcohol use that had been resolved through pretrial diversion. Moreover, Hayden was on probation for a domestic battery conviction from 2021. During the 2021 domestic battery, Hayden had “pointed a loaded gun at” his ex-wife, told her he was going to shoot her, gave her a black-eye, and “broke three (3) bones in [her] face.” Tr. Vol. VI p. 47. Hayden's criminal history reflects poorly on his character and supports the sentence he received. See Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”).

[13] Furthermore, we agree with the State that “Hayden's decision to become a stepfather to two children while he was awaiting trial [․] does not support a revision of his sentence.” Appellee's Br. p. 12. In any event, prior to their relationship, Hayden's current wife was able to support her children herself. Hayden's ex-wife, the mother of his child, is also able to support their child without Hayden's help.

[14] Hayden has failed to convince us that, in light of the nature of his offenses and character, his sentence is inappropriate. See Sanchez, 891 N.E.2d at 176.

[15] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.