Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 1 of 16

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

Donald R. Shuler

Goshen, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Cody N. Garman,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 15, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1275

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit

Court

The Honorable Michael A. 

Christofeno, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20C01-1705-MR-004

Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 2 of 16

Case Summary

[1] Cody Garman appeals his sentence for involuntary manslaughter, a Level 5 

felony. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 

Issues

[2] Garman raises two issues, which we restate as follows: 

I. Whether the trial court erred in failing to award Garman 

good time credit. 

II. Whether Garman’s sentence is inappropriate. 

Facts

[3] On May 25, 2017, Garman posted a Craigslist advertisement under the “casual 

encounters” section of the website seeking sexual acts in Elkhart County, where 

Garman lived. David Swartley responded to Garman’s Craigslist 

advertisement that night between 1:00 a.m. and 1:40 a.m. After Garman and 

Swartley exchanged messages, they agreed to meet. Swartley arrived at 

Garman’s house at approximately 3:00 a.m. Garman left the house and got in 

Swartley’s vehicle in the passenger seat. 

[4] Swartley drove his vehicle around the back of Garman’s house because 

Garman lived with his family, and Garman did not want them to see him with 

Swartley. Garman and Swartley engaged in various sexual acts. Garman 

claimed Swartley also made several other comments and attempted to perform 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 3 of 16

other sexual acts on Garman, which Garman told Swartley he did not want to 

do. 

[5] At some point during the interaction in the backseat, Garman testified that he

felt Swartley drip liquid from a “vial” into Garman’s nose. Tr. Vol. IV p. 112. 

Garman stated that he did not “pass all the way out,” but that he “faded out.” 

Id. When Garman “woke up,” Swartley was on top of him, and Garman 

“freaked out,” “kicked [Swartley] away,” and struck Swartley in the face with 

his fist. Id. Garman then got in the front seat of Swartley’s vehicle and drove 

away with Swartley still in the back seat. Garman found a small pathway in the 

woods and left Swartley’s vehicle there. Garman heard Swartley call for help as 

Garman fled the scene on foot. 

[6] Later that morning, at approximately 8:20 a.m., a person who lived in the area 

noticed the parked vehicle and called police. Corporal Andrew Ahlersmeyer 

with the Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department responded to the call and found 

the vehicle in the woods in the 24000 block of Ne Ce Dah Drive in Elkhart.

When Corporal Ahlersmeyer approached the vehicle in the woods, he noticed a 

shirtless male, later identified as Swartley, in the backseat of the vehicle, and 

positioned in an “unusual” way. Tr. Vol. II p. 83. At the time Corporal 

Ahlersmeyer approached the vehicle, Swartley appeared to be alive. Corporal 

Ahlersmeyer called an ambulance to the scene. Emergency personnel, who 

arrived at the scene, were not immediately able to find keys to the vehicle, and 

Garman later told detectives that he had thrown the keys to the vehicle in the 

wooded area. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 4 of 16

[7] Once medics got Swartley into the ambulance, he “postured,”1 in a way that

was indicative of a head injury. Garman’s beating of Swartley resulted in a 

subdural hematoma, a kick bruise to Swartley’s shoulder, a laceration to the top 

of Swartley’s head, bruises to both sides of Swartley’s face, three lacerations to 

different areas of Swartley’s mouth, a lacerated ear, broken cartilage, extensive 

bruising to Swartley’s head, serious trauma, neck contusions, and critical brain 

trauma. Swartley’s delayed treatment due to Garman secreting Swartley’s car 

and abandoning Swartley exacerbated Swartley’s injuries. Swartley’s death was 

declared a homicide as a result of “multiple injuries” from blunt force trauma

and abandonment after this beating.

2

 Tr. Vol. III p. 144. 

[8] Subsequently, Garman was charged with murder. The jury trial commenced on 

March 19, 2018. During the trial, Garman contacted his friend, Regina Uribe, 

and asked Uribe to contact jurors outside of the court proceedings and give the 

jury information regarding Swartley. Specifically, Garman wanted Uribe to tell 

a member of the jury that she knew someone whom Swartley had allegedly 

raped. There is no indication in the record that Swartley was ever convicted of 

rape. Additionally, Garman asked Uribe to encourage Garman’s grandmother 

to make the same allegation. On the phone call, Garman advised Uribe that 

 

1 When a patient “postures,” he or she “tense[s] up, and [his or her] arms will draw into the core of [his or 

her] body. It’s called decorticate posturing, and what that indicates is that there is . . . an injury between the 

pathway from the brain to the spinal cord.” Tr. Vol. II p. 136. 

2 Doctors believed Swartley had “intracranial bleeding,” which is bleeding inside the skull, as well as “a 

hemorrhage to the brain stem, which is actually bleeding inside the brain stem itself.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 190-91. 

Ultimately, doctors did not believe that Swartley was “amenable to any surgery[,]” and that, in fact, surgery 

would be “fruitless.” Id. at 194. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 5 of 16

the jury would likely send Garman home that day if Uribe was to communicate 

that message to the jury. 

[9] The State published the audio recording of Garman’s call from the Elkhart 

County Jail to Uribe during Garman’s trial. Garman testified in his own 

defense. On cross-examination, when asked about the call, Garman indicated 

that he wanted the jury to “know the truth” about Swartley.3

 Tr. Vol. IV p. 

186. No evidence, however, was ever located that Uribe or Garman’s 

grandmother ever contacted a juror. The jury convicted Garman of involuntary 

manslaughter, a Level 5 felony, as a lesser included offense of murder. 

[10] Garman was sentenced on April 19, 2018. The trial court found as mitigating 

factors: Garman’s statements of remorse at his sentencing hearing, including 

statements expressed by Garman’s attorney; Garman’s youthful age of twentythree; and Garman’s low risk to reoffend by the IRAS score. 

[11] The trial court found as aggravating factors: Garman’s prior criminal history; 

Garman’s previous probation violation for testing positive for cocaine;

Garman’s drug and alcohol use, which the trial court indicated showed “a 

disdain and a disregard for the law.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 163. Also the 

trial court found that Garman’s other sanctions did not result in rehabilitation 

 

3 Garman testified that, during the discovery process, he learned things about Swartley, and he wanted the 

jury to have a full picture of the victim. Specifically, it appears Garman wanted the jury to know about 

certain Craigslist advertisements Swartley had posted under “casual encounters,” which Garman’s attorney 

classified as “horrific requests.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 120. These Craigslist advertisements were not admitted as

evidence during the trial. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 6 of 16

of Garman and that Garman “has not taken advantage of programming and 

alternative sanctions offered to him in the past[.]” Id. The trial court also 

considered as aggravating factors the victim’s age of sixty-six; “[t]he harm, 

injury, loss or damages was significant and greater than the elements of the 

crime in that Swartley was “beaten to death and left to die[.]” Id. Garman was 

in a position to help Swartley, but left Swartley to die. Furthermore, Garman 

planned and recruited a friend to tamper with the jury, which Garman 

admitted. The trial court also considered Garman’s disturbing statement in his 

pre-sentence investigation report that Garman was “not happy or sad about [the 

offense]. I’m kind of sad someone ended up dying [for my] actions.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 190. The trial court noted Garman showed no 

remorse for his actions in making this statement. Finally, the trial court 

considered that Garman drove Swartley’s car to a secluded area to hide his 

crime, making it virtually impossible for anyone to render assistance to 

Swartley.4

 

[12] The trial court awarded Garman credit for time served, but declined to grant 

Garman good time credit. The trial court sentenced Garman to six years by 

enhancing the three-year advisory sentence by three additional years based on 

the aggravators. Garman now appeals his sentence. 

 

4 Although not explicitly stated as an aggravating factor, Garman also conducted internet searches in an

attempt to learn how to remove his DNA from certain objects. Garman also searched an obituary website for 

“Tradell Lesure,” which was the name that appeared to be connected to Swartley, at 9:46 p.m. on May 25, 

2017. Tr. Vol. IV p. 44. Swartley was not declared dead until after 10:00 p.m. on May 25, 2017. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 7 of 16

Analysis

[13] Garman appeals his sentence in two different respects. First, Garman argues 

that he was improperly deprived of good time credit. Second, Garman argues 

that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and 

Garman’s character. 

I. Good Time Credit

[14] Garman first argues that he was deprived of good time credit. At the 

sentencing hearing, the trial court engaged in the following colloquy with 

Garman: 

THE COURT: Let’s talk about credit time in Indiana. You 

understand that now you must serve three days in jail to get one 

day of good time credit?

[GARMAN]: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Have you discussed that with your attorney, 

Mr. Britton?

[GARMAN]: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about good time 

credit law in the state of Indiana?

[GARMAN]: No, sir. 

Sent. Tr. pp. 3-4. Later at sentencing, the trial court concluded: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 8 of 16

Court gives you credit – and listen closely, Mr. Garman. Court 

gives you credit for 328 days of actual jail time, but the Court 

declines to award you any good time credit. While you were 

incarcerated, you attempted to tamper with my jury, and you 

admitted it on the stand. And there is no way on God’s green 

earth I am giving you good time credit for that behavior. . . .

Id. at 42. 

[15] To determine whether Garman was entitled to good time credit and whether 

Garman was erroneously deprived of his good time credit, we must review the 

statutes at issue. “Matters of statutory interpretation, which inherently present 

a pure question of law, are reviewed de novo.” Shepard v. State, 84 N.E.3d 1171, 

1172 (Ind. 2017) (citing Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016))

(emphasis supplied). 

[16] Garman claims that, “as he was not a credit restricted felon and was awaiting 

trial for a crime other than a Level 6 felony or misdemeanor, [he] would be 

assigned to Class B for credit time purposes.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. 

Accordingly, Garman argues, that pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-

3.1(c), as a Class B offender, he was entitled to one day of good time credit for 

every three days he spent in jail awaiting trial. 

[17] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3.1(c), a Class B offender earns “one 

(1) day of good time credit for every three (3) days the person is imprisoned for 

a crime or confined awaiting trial or sentencing.” The State does not appear to 

disagree that Garman was a Class B offender, but instead argues that the 

revocation of Garman’s good time credit was statutorily permitted according to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 9 of 16

Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-5(a)(2), which states that a person may “be 

deprived of any part of the education credit or good time credit the person has 

earned. . .” if the person violates “one (1) or more rules of the penal facility in 

which the person is imprisoned.” Specifically, the State argues that Garman’s 

attempt to tamper with the jury constitutes obstruction of justice. Accordingly, 

the State argues, because Garman did not follow the law, he presumably broke 

a rule of the Elkhart County Jail, where Garman was housed, and the trial 

court acted within its statutory authority to deprive Garman of good time 

credit. 

[18] Garman argues that he was not granted a hearing or other procedural 

safeguards, such as written notice, prior to his denial of good time credit in 

violation of Indiana Code Sections 35-50-6-5(b) and 35-50-6-4(f). The State 

responds that, “[a]lthough the trial court did not conduct a separate hearing, 

Garman received due process. While he was represented by counsel, he was 

able to cross-examine the witness, testify on his own behalf, and certainly had 

the opportunity to call any additional witnesses he wanted[.]” Appellee’s Br. p. 

12. 

[19] Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-5(b) states: 

Before a person may be deprived of educational credit or good 

time credit, the person must be granted a hearing to determine 

the person’s guilt or innocence and, if found guilty, whether 

deprivation of earned educational credit or good time credit is an 

appropriate disciplinary action for the violation. In connection 

with the hearing, the person is entitled to the procedural 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 10 of 16

safeguards listed in section 4(c) of this chapter. The person may 

waive the person’s right to the hearing.5

Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-4(f) states, with regard to procedural safeguards, 

that: 

In connection with the hearing granted under subsection (d) or 

(e), the person is entitled to:

(1) have not less than twenty-four (24) hours advance 

written notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing, and of 

the alleged misconduct and the rule the alleged misconduct is 

alleged to have violated;

(2) have reasonable time to prepare for the hearing;

(3) have an impartial decisionmaker;

(4) appear and speak in the person’s own behalf;

(5) call witnesses and present evidence;

(6) confront and cross-examine each witness, unless the 

hearing authority finds that to do so would subject a witness to a 

substantial risk of harm;

 

5 Section 4(c) states: “A person who is a credit restricted felon and who is imprisoned for a crime or 

imprisoned awaiting trial or sentencing is initially assigned to Class C. A credit restricted felon may not be 

assigned to Class A or Class B.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 11 of 16

(7) have the assistance of a lay advocate (the department 

may require that the advocate be an employee of, or a fellow 

prisoner in, the same facility or program);

(8) have a written statement of the findings of fact, the 

evidence relied upon, and the reasons for the action taken;

(9) have immunity if the person’s testimony or any 

evidence derived from the person's testimony is used in any 

criminal proceedings; and

(10) have the person’s record expunged of any reference to 

the charge if the person is found not guilty or if a finding of guilt 

is later overturned.

[20] Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-4(d), referenced above, states that, “A person 

who is not a credit restricted felon may be reassigned to Class C or Class D if 

the person violates any of the following: . . . (2) A rule of the penal facility in 

which the person is imprisoned.” Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-4(e), 

referenced above, includes similar language, but applies to persons who are 

credit restricted felons. Still, under both sections: “Before a person may be 

reassigned to a lower credit time class, the person must be granted a hearing to 

determine the person’s guilt or innocence and, if found guilty, whether 

reassignment is an appropriate disciplinary action for the violation.” I.C. § 35-

50-6-4(d); see also I.C. § 35-50-6-4(e). 

[21] Garman’s argument requires us to consider two separate issues: (1) whether the 

deprivation of Garman’s good time credit was for a statutorily permitted 

purpose; and (2) whether the trial court’s failure to have a hearing regarding 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 12 of 16

Garman’s good time credit was error. Here, we find the answer to the second 

question is dispositive. The record is unclear whether the trial court intended to 

maintain Garman’s Class B offender status and simply take away Garman’s 

good time credit, or if the trial court was changing Garman’s Class B status to 

Class D status. In either scenario a hearing is required, thus, the answer to this 

question does not change the outcome here. 

[22] In revoking Garman’s good time credit, the trial court expressly noted that 

Garman was guilty of the offense of attempted jury tampering, which was 

proved by Garman’s testimony at trial and the audio recording of the phone call 

between Garman and Uribe played at the trial. While we can assume that this 

was a violation of the penal facility’s rules, this fact has not been established. 

See Tumbleson v. State, 706 N.E.2d 217, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (finding that:

“By statute, Tumbleson was entitled to one day credit time for each actual day 

served barring proof at a hearing of a violation of the rules of the facility in 

which he was incarcerated”); see also Murphy v. State, 930 N.E.2d 630, 633 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2010) (remanding for a hearing on whether the trial court should have 

granted educational credit time because “the issue of whether Murphy 

demonstrated a pattern consistent with rehabilitation was never addressed”), 

opinion adopted by Murphy v. State, 942 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2011). We believe 

Garman was entitled to a hearing on this issue pursuant to the statute. 

[23] While we do agree with the State that Garman did have the opportunity to call 

witnesses related to this issue at his trial, Garman’s testimony on his attempted 

jury tampering was limited by the trial court. Specifically, the trial court did not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 13 of 16

allow Garman to testify as to the details of the attempted jury tampering in 

front of the jury because doing so would reveal information that had been 

excluded pursuant to an earlier trial court ruling. Garman was also not given 

the opportunity to address the issue of deprivation of his good time credit at his 

sentencing hearing. Accordingly, Garman was not given the opportunity to 

fully address his behavior and to be heard on whether restriction of his good 

time credit was an appropriate response to his attempted jury tampering. See 

e.g., Tumbleson, 706 N.E.2d at 218. 

[24] Based on the plain reading of the statute, Garman was not given an appropriate 

hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a hearing on 

whether Garman should be deprived of good time credit. 

II. Inappropriate Sentencing

[25] Garman next contends that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offense and Garman’s character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides 

that this court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due 

consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence “is 

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

offender.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this court that his or her 

sentence is inappropriate. Wilson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1259, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2012) (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied. 

[26] In Indiana, trial courts can tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances 

presented; the trial court’s judgment receives “considerable deference.” Sanders 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 14 of 16

v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 

1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)). In conducting our review, we do not look to see 

whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or “if another sentence might 

be more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is 

inappropriate.” Sanders, 71 N.E.3d at 844 (citing King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 

268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). 

[27] We look to the statutory ranges established for the classification of the offense. 

Garman was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a Level 5 felony, as a 

lesser included offense of murder. The sentence for a Level 5 felony ranges 

from one year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code 

§ 35-50-2-6. Garman was sentenced to six years. 

[28] We first review the nature of Garman’s offense. Garman killed Swartley after a

sexual encounter between the men. Garman kicked and beat Swartley, who 

was significantly older and weighed approximately eighty pounds less than 

Garman. After realizing that he injured Swartley, Garman drove Swartley’s 

vehicle into a wooded area, hid the vehicle, and left Swartley to die, despite 

Swartley’s calls for help. Although Garman was charged with murder, a jury 

convicted Garman of involuntary manslaughter, a Level 5 felony. 

[29] Next, we consider Garman’s character. Garman’s criminal history, although 

not extensive, does not reflect well on Garman’s character. Garman’s juvenile 

criminal history includes: a warning and release for a crime that would be, if 

committed by an adult, criminal trespass; a referral to a juvenile program for a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 15 of 16

crime that would be, if committed by an adult, battery, a Class B misdemeanor; 

and an adjudication as a delinquent for a crime that would be, if committed by 

an adult, knowingly or intentionally operating a motor vehicle without ever 

receiving a license, a Class C misdemeanor. Garman’s adult criminal history 

includes a conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A 

misdemeanor in addition to the instant offense. Garman also previously 

violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for cocaine. 

[30] Garman’s jury tampering also does not reflect well upon his character. Garman 

recruited Uribe to tamper with the jury in hopes to influence the outcome of the 

trial. Garman also requested Uribe to ask Garman’s grandmother to do the 

same. Finally, Garman’s lack of remorse also does not reflect well upon his 

character. While Garman indicated at sentencing that he was remorseful, for 

purposes of the pre-sentence investigation report, when asked if he was 

remorseful, Garman answered, “I’m not happy or sad about it. I’m kind of sad 

someone ended up dying for my actions.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 139. 

Garman’s indifference to Swartley’s death, due to Garman’s actions, reflects 

poorly on Garman’s character. 

[31] While Garman received the maximum sentence for his conviction, his sentence 

was not inappropriate. The trial court listed numerous aggravators and after 

weighing the aggravators against the mitigators, the trial court determined that 

a six-year sentence was appropriate. We do not disagree. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1275 | March 15, 2019 Page 16 of 16

Conclusion

[32] Garman’s sentence was not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense 

and Garman’s character. The trial court, however, committed error by 

depriving Garman of his good time credit without a proper hearing. 

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a hearing on 

Garman’s deprivation of good time credit. 

[33] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

Baker, J., and May, J., concur.