Background
Akeenen Hunt repeatedly called A.R. from jail while two no-contact orders barred him from communicating with her. The calls concerned pending criminal cases in which A.R. was the victim and a potential witness. According to the State, Hunt used promises, pressure, and suggested explanations in an effort to affect what she would tell authorities or say in court. Prosecutors ultimately charged a large number of attempted-obstruction and invasion-of-privacy counts arising from the calls.
A jury found Hunt guilty of multiple counts of attempted obstruction of justice, invasion of privacy, and attempted invasion of privacy. The trial court imposed an aggregate 35-year sentence. On appeal, Hunt raised issues under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B), challenged notice of the felony level assigned to one count, disputed the sufficiency of the obstruction evidence, and attacked both the sentencing process and the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
The speedy-trial dispute turned on several requests. At Hunt’s initial hearing, after counsel had been appointed, Hunt asked questions about his right to a fast and speedy trial. He later submitted a written pro se request, which the trial court declined to entertain because represented defendants speak through counsel. Counsel eventually filed an early-trial request on July 2, and trial began August 20, within 70 days of that request.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed every conviction and the sentence. Assuming the initial colloquy could be treated as an early-trial request, the court held that Hunt abandoned it by making a later request. The intervening written request did not start the clock because Hunt was represented and the trial court acted within its discretion by refusing to consider a pro se filing. The later request filed through counsel also superseded any earlier request, and the trial occurred within Rule 4(B)’s 70-day period. The panel separately noted that Hunt did not seek discharge before trial, another obstacle to relief.
The court also rejected Hunt’s notice challenge to Count 93. Although the charging information mislabeled the count as a Class A misdemeanor, it cited the statutes for attempted Level 5 felony obstruction and described the conduct and enhancing circumstances. An erroneous label is not fatal when the information otherwise tells the defendant what charge must be defended. Because Hunt had not preserved a due-process objection or developed fundamental-error review, the claim was waived as well as unsuccessful on its merits.
On sufficiency, the panel concluded the jail calls permitted the jury to find that Hunt took substantial steps toward unlawfully influencing A.R.’s truthful testimony. Attempt liability did not require that his pressure actually succeed. The panel declined to reweigh the calls or witness credibility. It likewise found no sentencing abuse and held that the 35-year term was not inappropriate given the offenses and Hunt’s character, including the repeated conduct and his criminal history.
Key Takeaways
- A represented defendant’s personal speedy-trial request does not automatically trigger Criminal Rule 4(B); after counsel is appointed, whether to consider a pro se request is left to the trial court’s discretion.
- A later speedy-trial request abandons an earlier one, so counsel should identify the operative request and calculate the 70-day deadline from it.
- A mistaken offense-level label in a charging information does not require reversal when the statutory citations and factual allegations provide adequate notice.
- Repeated jail communications can support attempted obstruction even if the witness is not ultimately persuaded or the desired testimony never occurs.
Why It Matters
For Indiana criminal practitioners, Hunt is a practical warning about preserving Rule 4 claims. Defense counsel should make an early-trial demand explicitly, through counsel, and move for discharge before trial if the deadline is believed to have expired. Informal courtroom questions and serial requests create avoidable disputes about which filing controls.
The decision also emphasizes substance over captions in charging documents. A labeling error remains important, but the appellate inquiry focuses on whether the full information misled the accused or impaired the defense. Prosecutors should correct such errors promptly; defense counsel should object in the trial court and frame any unpreserved constitutional claim under fundamental error.