Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Bradley Keffer

Brooke Smith

Keffer Barnhart LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Leroy Terrell Hunter,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 29, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-108

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court

The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

82D03-1802-MR-1106

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019 Page 2 of 7

[1] Leroy Terrell Hunter appeals his sentence for voluntary manslaughter as a level 

2 felony enhanced by his possession of a firearm. He raises one issue which we 

revise and restate as whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 10, 2017, Dion Banks introduced Donald Xavier Freels to 

Carolyn Butler whom Banks knew sold synthetic cannabinoids or “Katey,” as 

well as methamphetamine and marijuana. Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 

53. Freels and Butler made plans for a narcotics transaction. Hunter and 

Zachery Hunter (“Zachery”) accompanied Butler when she went to meet 

Freels. 

[3] Freels asked to see the narcotics, and Butler handed him methamphetamine 

and marijuana. Freels began to weigh the narcotics with his own scale. Butler 

heard Freels say “what are you two n----- on,” and she heard gunshots 

immediately after. Id. at 55. She saw a muzzle flash in the rearview mirror 

coming from the gun that Hunter was firing in Freels’s direction. Freels was 

shot multiple times, and Hunter and Zachery loaded his body into the back seat 

of Butler’s vehicle and told her to drive. Butler drove to the end of an access 

road, and Hunter and Zachery removed Freels’s body and “dumped him like 

trash.” Id. Hunter and Zachery looked in Freels’s pockets and found he did not 

have any money. An autopsy revealed that Freels was shot seven times 

including three shots to his head and four to his upper and lower back and that 

two different calibers of bullets were used in the shooting. Butler’s sister later 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019 Page 3 of 7

indicated to police that she had heard Hunter say that Freels pulled out a gun 

and attempted to rob Butler. 

[4] On February 13, 2018, the State charged Hunter with murder and alleged that 

he was eligible for a sentencing enhancement for committing a felony offense 

while a member of a criminal organization as well as for committing a felony 

offense while using a firearm. 

[5] On November 14, 2018, the court held a hearing at which the parties indicated 

that Hunter would plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter as a level 2 felony 

and admit the firearm enhancement, and the court would sentence him to 

between twenty and forty years. On December 14, 2018, the court held a 

hearing, and Hunter pled guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. Hunter did not 

present evidence, but his counsel argued that he had no prior felony history, the 

crime was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur, he is unlikely to commit 

another crime, Freels either induced or facilitated the offense, and his 

incarceration would result in undue hardship on his three children.

1

 Hunter’s 

counsel asked for a sentence of fifteen years enhanced by eight years for the 

firearm enhancement. The prosecutor asked for a sentence of forty years. 

 

1 The presentence investigation report states that Hunter had zero dependent children. At sentencing, 

Hunter’s counsel stated: “Judge, we went through the presentence in the back and everything appears to be 

accurate. He did not indicate any changes and I did not see any going through it as well.” Transcript 

Volume II at 13. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019 Page 4 of 7

[6] On December 19, 2018, the court continued the hearing, accepted the plea 

agreement, found Hunter’s criminal history and the nature and circumstances 

of the offense surrounding the killing as aggravators, and sentenced him to 

twenty years for voluntary manslaughter enhanced by twenty years on the 

firearm enhancement for an aggregate sentence of forty years. 

Discussion

[7] The issue is whether Hunter’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense and the character of the offender. Hunter contends that Freels’s 

death and the use of a firearm were already accounted for in the conviction and 

that he was not one of the main proponents or planners involved in the drug 

deal. He argues that Freels was actually trying to rob Butler, that he has led a 

law-abiding life for a substantial period of time, he is likely to respond 

appropriately to probation or short-term imprisonment, he is unlikely to 

commit another crime, his imprisonment will result in undue hardship to his 

three children, and he accepted responsibility for his crime. 

[8] The State argues that the facts surrounding the crime and Hunter’s criminal 

history were valid considerations and that the facts surrounding the crime 

undermine and contradict Hunter’s alleged mitigating circumstances. It asserts 

that the fact that Freels was shot in the back completely undermines any claims 

that he acted in a way that necessitated the shooting. 

[9] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by 

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019 Page 5 of 7

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character 

of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade 

the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[10] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 provides that “[a] person who commits a Level 2 felony 

shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years, 

with the advisory sentence being seventeen and one-half (17 1⁄2) years.” Ind. 

Code § 35-50-2-11(g) provides that if the court finds that “the person knowingly 

or intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the offense under 

subsection (d), the court may sentence the person to an additional fixed term of 

imprisonment of between five (5) years and twenty (20) years.” 

[11] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Hunter accompanied Butler 

who had sold synthetic cannabinoids, methamphetamine, and marijuana, to a 

narcotics transaction. He fired a gun in Freels’s direction, and Freels was shot 

seven times including three shots to his head and four to his upper and lower 

back. He dumped Freels’s body like trash and looked in his pockets. 

[12] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Hunter pled guilty to 

voluntary manslaughter as a level 2 felony and a firearm enhancement after he 

was charged with murder and two sentencing enhancements. His criminal 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019 Page 6 of 7

history includes convictions for residential entry,

2 reckless driving and public 

intoxication as class B misdemeanors, and operating a motor vehicle without 

ever having received a license as a class C misdemeanor.3

 The presentence 

investigation report (“PSI”) reveals that Hunter was charged with false 

informing and public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor and received “12 

days VCJ.”4

 Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 46. It also lists a charge of 

alcohol intoxication in a public place with a sentencing date of March 13, 2008, 

but states: “No disposition available.” Id. In 2008, Hunter’s probation was 

revoked. The PSI indicates that his overall risk assessment score places him in 

the high risk to reoffend category. After due consideration, we conclude that 

Hunter has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.5

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hunter’s sentence.

 

2 The entry in the chronological case summary related to residential entry lists an offense date of May 14, 

2003, and a sentencing date of October 18, 2007. 

3 The entry for reckless driving, public intoxication, and operating a motor vehicle without having received a 

license lists an offense date of April 14, 2003, and a sentencing date of September 26, 2007. 

4 The entry for these offenses lists an offense date of October 11, 2008, and a sentencing date of November 

22, 2017. 

5 To the extent Hunter argues that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him by failing to consider 

certain mitigators, we need not address this issue because we find that his sentence is not inappropriate. See 

Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that any error in failing to consider 

the defendant’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor is harmless if the sentence is not inappropriate) (citing 

Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007) (holding that, in the absence of a proper sentencing order, 

Indiana appellate courts may either remand for resentencing or exercise their authority to review the sentence 

pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh’g denied; Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) 

(noting that, “even if the trial court is found to have abused its discretion in the process it used to sentence the 

defendant, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed was not inappropriate”), trans. denied), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-108 | May 29, 2019 Page 7 of 7

[14] Affirmed.

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.