Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 1 of 8

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ON REHEARING

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Alexander L. Hoover

Law Office of Christopher D. Walter

Nappanee, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeffery J. Hunt,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 7, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A03-1408-CR-00300

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit

Court

The Honorable Terry C. 

Shewmaker, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

20C01-1311-FA-064

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 2 of 8

[1] Jeffery Hunt (“Hunt”) pleaded guilty in Elkhart Circuit Court to Count I, Class 

A felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon causing seriously bodily 

injury; Count II, Class A felony burglary; Count III, Class B felony conspiracy 

to commit burglary; and Count IV, Class B felony criminal confinement. Hunt

was sentenced to an aggregate term of 120 years executed in the Department of 

Correction. Hunt appeals and argues that the 120-year sentence imposed by the 

trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character 

of the offender.

[2] We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On November 4, 2013, around 9 p.m., Hunt and his father, Jeffrey Hill (“Hill”), 

knocked on the door of the New Paris residence of Don and Joan Neer. Eightytwo year old Don Neer came to the door but refused to open it. Hunt and Hill

forced their way into the home, and Hunt struck Mr. Neer on the head with a 

tire iron, then struck him several more times with the tire iron and his fists as 

Mrs. Neer watched helplessly.

1 As a result of the attack, Mr. Neer suffered 

lacerations on his head, three fractured vertebrae in his neck, and a bruised 

wrist. Hunt and Hill then forced Mr. Neer into the living room, restrained him 

in a chair, and went through the house, taking guns, a television, and cash. 

 

1 Hunt claims that it was his father who struck Mr. Neer with the tire iron. However, both Mr. and Mrs. Neer 

stated that Hunt was the one who beat Mr. Neer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 3 of 8

[4] The State charged Hunt with Count I, Class A felony robbery while armed 

with a deadly weapon causing seriously bodily injury; Count II, Class A felony 

burglary; Count III, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary; and Count 

IV, Class B felony criminal confinement. Hunt initially pleaded not guilty, but 

on June 19, 2014, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to all 

four charges. 

[5] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on July 31, 2014. At the hearing, the 

trial court considered the fact that Hunt accepted responsibility by pleading 

guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement and Hunt’s age, twenty-six years, 

as mitigating circumstances. The trial court then found the following 

aggravating factors: Hunt’s criminal history and especially his two prior 

burglary convictions, the fact that he had multiple victims, the age of the 

victims, the extensive injuries suffered by Mr. Neer, the fact that Hunt failed to 

seek medical attention for Mr. Neer after beating him, the fact that Hunt would 

not allow Mr. Neer to take his heart medication when he needed it, and the fact 

that Hunt was determined to be at a high risk to reoffend. After finding that the 

aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced 

Hunt to fifty years for Count I, fifty years for Count II, twenty years for Count 

III, and twenty years for Count IV. The sentences for Counts I, II, and IV were 

to be served consecutively, and the sentence for Count III was to be served 

concurrently with the sentence for Count IV, for an aggregate sentence of 120 

years.

[6] Hunt now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 4 of 8

Discussion and Decision

[7] Hunt argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B), we may revise a sentence otherwise 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.” Although we have the power to review and revise sentences, the 

principal role of our review should be to attempt to level the outliers, and 

identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with 

improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve what we perceive to 

be a “correct” result in each case. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 

(Ind. 2008)).

[8] Also, “we must and should exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing 

decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give ‘due consideration’ to that 

decision and because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a 

trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 

866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not 

whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether 

the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade us that 

the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 5 of 8

[9] In exercising our review power, we are not required to compare a defendant’s 

sentence with sentences received by other defendants in similar cases. Knight v. 

State, 930 N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ind. 2010). However, comparison of sentences among 

those convicted of the same or similar offenses can be a proper consideration 

when deciding whether a particular sentence is inappropriate. Id. Our supreme 

court has stated, “Of course, a respectable legal system attempts to impose 

similar sentences on perpetrators committing the same acts who have the same 

backgrounds.” Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 854 (Ind. 2003). 

[10] Hunt pleaded guilty to Count I, Class A felony robbery while armed with a 

deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury; Count II, Class A felony 

burglary; Count III, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary, and Count 

IV, Class B felony criminal confinement. On the date of Hunt’s offense,2 the 

sentencing range for a Class A felony was twenty to fifty years, with thirty years 

being the advisory sentence. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4. The sentencing range for 

a Class B felony was six to twenty years, with ten years being the advisory 

sentence. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. The trial court imposed a sentence of fifty 

years for Count I, fifty years for Count II, twenty years for Count III, and 

twenty years for Count IV. The trial court ordered that the sentences for 

Counts I, II, and IV be served consecutively and that the sentence for Count III 

 

2 The date of Hunt’s offense was November 4, 2013. Indiana’s revised sentencing statutes took effect on 

July 1, 2014. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 6 of 8

be served concurrently with the sentence for Count IV, for an aggregate 

sentence of 120 years.

[11] The facts in this case are undisputedly heinous; Hunt admits as much in his 

brief. Hunt and his father forced their way into the residence of an elderly 

couple, who they knew were home at the time. Hunt struck Mr. Neer on the 

head, mouth, and arm with a tire iron and confined the Neers in their living 

room. Mr. Neer was unable to work following the break-in and had to postpone 

a scheduled surgery to remove a tumor on his lungs. Mrs. Neer stated that she 

has suffered emotional trauma from the attack and that, at night, she still has 

visions of a hooded Hunt standing in the hallway of her home. 

[12] Hunt also has a criminal history that includes juvenile adjudications in Illinois 

for attempted theft and drug possession. He has previously been convicted of 

burglary, residential burglary, and battery in Illinois and for operating a vehicle 

never having been licensed and criminal conversion in Indiana. Hunt failed to 

appear for his criminal proceedings eight different times. Despite the fact that 

Hunt pleaded guilty to the crimes, he has continued to blame his father for 

involving him in the crimes and claims that it was his father who beat Mr. 

Neer, even though both Mr. Neer and Mrs. Neer insist that Hunt was the 

person who struck Mr. Neer. 

[13] However, our review of reported cases decided since adoption of the 

“inappropriate” standard for reviewing sentences reveals that sentencing for 

similar cases has generally ranged from twenty-six years to ninety years. See
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 7 of 8

Campbell v. State, No. 13S05-1410-PC-682, 2014 WL 5490577 (Ind. Oct. 30, 

2014) (affirming ninety-year sentence for convictions for two counts of 

attempted murder, Class A felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, 

Class B felony aggravated battery, and Class C felony battery); Bushhorn v. State, 

971 N.E.2d 80, 81 (Ind. 2012) (forty-seven year aggregate sentence for Class A 

felony kidnapping, three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and 

Class B felony attempted escape); Joseph v. State, 975 N.E.2d 420, 424 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012) (twenty-six year aggregate sentence for Class A felony burglary 

resulting in bodily injury, Class B felony attempted armed robbery, and Class B 

felony criminal confinement); Kennedy v. State, 934 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2010) (affirming twenty-seven year aggregate sentence with three years 

suspended for convictions for Class A felony robbery and Class A felony 

conspiracy to commit robbery); Upton v. State, 904 N.E.2d 700, 702 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2009) (ninety-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony child 

molesting and three counts of Class B felony child molesting). 

[14] After surveying sentences imposed in similar cases, we conclude that Hunt’s

120-year sentence is an “outlier” that is in need of revision. To be clear, we 

need not ensure that all sentences for similar acts and defendants are precisely 

the same.

[15] We therefore direct that Hunt’s sentence be revised as follows: that his 

sentences for his two Class A felony convictions be reduced from fifty years to 

thirty years each, and his sentences for his two Class B felony convictions 

remain unchanged at twenty years each, all to be served consecutively, for an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1408-CR-300 | August 7, 2015 Page 8 of 8

aggregate sentence of 100 years. We remand with instructions that the trial 

court issue an amended sentencing order to carry out this revision.

Conclusion

[16] For all of these reasons, we conclude that Hunt’s sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender and direct 

that it be revised to an aggregate term of 100 years. 

[17] Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.