Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 4

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Stanley L. Campbell

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DeeDee Barnett,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2569

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D05-1710-MR-9

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 4

[1] DeeDee Barnett appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after Barnett 

pleaded guilty to Murder, arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and his character. Finding that the sentence is not 

inappropriate, we affirm.

[2] On October 25, 2017, Barnett approached a vehicle being driven by Jack Florea 

and carrying Brian Lowe as a passenger. Barnett shot Lowe in the head. Lowe 

was transported to a hospital and later died as a result of the gunshot wound. 

[3] On October 27, 2017, the State charged Barnett with murder and included an 

enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. On August 

29, 2018, the day on which Barnett’s jury trial was scheduled to begin, Barnett 

pleaded guilty in exchange for the dismissal of the enhancement. On 

September 28, 2018, the trial court sentenced Barnett to a term of sixty-three 

years. Barnett now appeals.

[4] Barnett’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 

provides that this Court may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We must “conduct 

[this] review with substantial deference and give ‘due consideration’ to the trial 

court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven 

the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence . . . .” Knapp v. 

State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 

1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 4

[5] For a murder conviction, Barnett faced a sentence of forty-five to sixty-five 

years imprisonment, with an advisory term of fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-3. The trial court imposed a term of sixty-three years, which is above the 

advisory but less than the maximum possible term.

[6] With respect to the nature of the offense, Barnett committed a cold-blooded 

murder. While Barnett claims that Lowe had been a bully in the past, there is 

no evidence whatsoever that at the time of the shooting, Barnett was under any 

kind of a physical threat. Barnett approached the vehicle and instigated the 

shooting. He did so in the presence of a witness, Florea, who is traumatized 

because of the incident. The murder occurred the day before Lowe’s daughter’s 

eleventh birthday, and following the murder, Lowe’s pregnant fiancée lost her 

baby. Lowe’s parents had to make the heart-wrenching decision to remove 

their son from life support—on their thirty-fifth wedding anniversary.

[7] As for Barnett’s character, he has an extensive criminal history spanning 

decades. His contacts with the criminal justice system began when he was a 

juvenile, and as an adult, he has amassed multiple misdemeanor convictions 

and a felony domestic battery conviction. Throughout these years, Barnett has 

been offered multiple chances of rehabilitation: as a juvenile, probation, 

community service, an informal adjustment, and attendance at the Wood 

Youth Center; and as an adult, probation, community service, criminal division 

services, home detention, short jail sentences, sentences at the Department of 

Correction, and parole. Despite these many opportunities, Barnett has 

continued to show a lack of respect for the rule of law and his fellow citizens, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 4

ending with the ultimate act of antisocial behavior—taking the life of another 

person.

[8] Given these facts, we do not find the sentence imposed by the trial court to be 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Barnett’s character.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.