Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 1 of 13



### 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.
A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLANT Joshua Vincent Valerie K. Boots Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Myriam Serrano Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Devon Seats , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff

. November 20, 2020 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 20A

- CR

- 856 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Barbara Crawford, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G01

- 1808

- MR

- 28762

Darden , Senior Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 2 of 13 

## Statement of the Case
[1] Devon Seats appeals the sentence he received for his convictions of murder, a felony 1 and three counts of Level 4 felony burglary. 2 We affirm. 

## Issue
[2] Seats presents one issue for our review : whether his sentence is inappropriate.



## Facts and Procedural Hi story
[3] T he facts before us are derived from the factual basis established at the guilty plea hearing and the testimony of Sergeant Mark Prater at Seats’ sentencing hearing.

[4] On November 20, 2017, Seats, Nehemiah Merriweather, Tarius Blade and Ka ’ Ron Bickham

- Hurst embarked up on a series of home burglaries in Indianapolis, Indiana, commencing with the home of Eric Cummings. The four young men gained entry by breaking a window in the rear of the home

. They then ransacked the home and took a laptop and several pairs of Air Jordan shoes.

1 Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 1

- 1 ( 2017 )

. 2 Ind. Code § 35

- 43

- 2

- 1 ( 2014 )

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 3 of 13

[5] The four young men next arrived at the home of Dr. Kevin Ro d gers . 3 Blade knocked on the door , and , believing that no one was inside , all four men w ent to the back of the home

. The y used a paving stone from the yard to break a rear window to gain entry into the home , and Seats entered the ho me . After gaining entry and hearing a voice inside , M erriweather, Bickham

- Hurst , and Blade fled from the home

. However, Seats remained inside t he ho m e and confronted Dr. Ro d gers , the homeowner. After shooting Dr. Rodgers multiple times, Seats took several Cathedral High School championship rings and fled from the home

.
[6] O fficers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ( IMPD ) responde d to a call of a person shot , and f irst responders found Dr. Ro d gers in the kitchen of his home with two gunshot wounds, one to the abdomen and another to the head. Medics pronounced Dr. Ro d gers dead at the scene. Crime scene specialists located three shell casings inside the home , and l ater testing revealed that the cartridge casings were all fired by the same firearm.

[7] Apparently not satisfied, Seats, Merriweather, Bickham

- Hurst, and Blade decided to burglar ize a third home that day

. The young m en forced entry through a rear bedroom window into a home belonging to Logan Ara uj o . The y

3 Although in the transcript Dr. Rodgers’ surname is spelled “Rogers,” family, friends , and colleagues of the victim use the spelling of “Rodgers” in th e numerou s victim impact letters submitted in this case

. Thus, we presume “Rodgers” is the correct spelling of the victim’s sur name and use it here.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 4 of 13

took numerous items from the home, including a distinctive gold colored Glock semi

- automatic handgun, a shotgun , s everal watches , and a diamond ring.

[8] Later that afternoon, police stopped a vehicle that had come from S eats ’ home , and in the trunk of the vehicle they found a 9 m illimeter semi

- automatic handgun that a firearms examiner later determined was the gun that h ad fired the shell casings found in Dr. Ro d gers ’ home. In a nother vehicle, police recovered several Cathedral High School athletic c hampionship rings that were stolen from Dr. Ro d gers ’ home, and subsequent analysis revealed that a DNA sample collected from Seats matched DNA found on the rin gs . Additionally, police found Eric Cummings ’ stolen laptop in a vehicle occupied by Bl ade, S eats , and Merriweather

. During the investigation, police also seized the cell phones of all four men

. Forensic analysis of their cell phones yielded photos and v ideos taken on November 20 th

. In th e v ideos , Merriweather, Blade , Bickham

- Hurst , and Seats are holding the gun used to kill Dr. Rodgers and the firearm stolen from Logan Ara uj o ’ s residence

.
[9] Sergeant Mark Prater with the IMPD was the lead detective assigned to this case, and he testified at Seats’ sentencing hearing. Sergeant Prater testified that , during his interview of Tarius Blade , Blade stated that when he asked Seats why he had shot Dr. Rodgers, Seats responded, “ Because he saw my face.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 49.

[10] T he State initially charged Seats with Count I murder , a felony; Count II murder, a felony ; Count III burglary, a Level 1 felony; Count IV burglary, aCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 5 of 13

Level 4 felony; Count V burglary, a Level 4 felony; and Cou nt VI burglary, a L evel 4 felony. A jury trial was set to begin o n these charges on January 13, 2020 ; however, on the morning of trial, the parties submitted a plea agreement to the trial court. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, Seats agreed t o plead guilty to Count I murder and to Count s IV , V, and VI, three counts of Level 4 felony burglary , in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the remaining counts. The plea agreement also provided that the sentences on all counts were to run concurrent l y and that the total aggregate sentence would be capped at fifty years. Seats acknowledged to the trial court that he was pleading guilty for the reason that he was guilty ; that he was satisfied with the representation provided by his attorney ; and that he wanted to enter into the agreement and was doing so voluntarily. The trial court accepted the plea agreement after finding that a factual basis existed for the pleas ; too k th e matter under further advisement ; and set the matter for a sentencing hearing date.

[11] Seats’ sentencing hearing was scheduled for February 13 th . On the day of sentencing , Seats’ counsel informed the court that Seats did not want to proceed

w ith the ple a agreement. The trial court requested the parties to submit briefs on the issue of whether the court could “hold [Seats] to his plea agreem ent
. ” Id.
at 29. After receiv ing the parties’ briefs/ submissions, the court held a hearing
on February 27 th , at which it noted its authority to move forward with the plea agreement and denied Seats’ request to withdraw his pleas

. In announcing its decision , the court comment ed upon Seats’ allegation in his brief/ submission and argument to the cou rt that he had difficulty understanding the proceedings ,Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 6 of 13

as noted : “ Mr. Seats is not new to the criminal justice system. He is currently serving a sentence for another offense. So, he has been through this process before. He is not new to it. S o, he d oes understand what the plea agreement is and what it means. ” Id. at 36

- 37. In addition, the court stat ed , “ The State also submitted to the Court a jail recording in which Mr. Seats expresses buyer’s remorse, not for any other reason other than he just no longer wanted it and he thought he could beat it.” Id. at 37.

[12] O n March 12 th , the trial court held Seats’ se ntencing hearing. Sergeant Prater testified on behalf of the State

. Dr. Rodgers’ sister, oldest son, and wife gave victim impact statements to the court about how his murder had affected the family

. Seats’ mo ther testified on his behalf. The court sent enced Seats to fifty years for his murder conviction and to eight years on each of the three burglary convictions , with all the sentences to be served concurrently , for an aggregate sentence of fifty years pursuant to the plea agreement. The court ordered that t h e sentence in the instant case be served consecutively to Seats’ sentence under a different cause number

. Seats now appeals his sentence.



## Discussion and Decision
[13] The sole issue Seats presents in this appeal is whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Particularly, h e suggests that his sentence should be revis e d to forty

- five years.

[14] Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, article 7, sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizeCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 7 of 13

independent appellate review and revision of sentences through India na Appellate Rule 7(B) , which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Thompson v. State , 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)

. However, “we must and should exer cise 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 persp ective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Stewart v. State , 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

. Such deference to the trial court’s judgment should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (su ch as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character). Stephenson v. State , 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (I nd. 2015) . T h us, th e question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State , 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)

. The defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court th at his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State , 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)

.
[15] A plea agreement that does not provide for an open plea but nevertheless affords the trial court some discretion in sentencing is subject to review under Rule 7(B)

. Rivera v. State , 851 N.E.2d 299, 301

- 02 (Ind. 2006) . Such is the caseCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 8 of 13

here in , where the plea agreement capped Seats’ aggregate sentence at fift y years but left other aspects of his sentence to the trial court’s discretion.

[16] To assess whether a sentence is inappropriate, we look first to the statutory range established for the class of the offenses. Here, Seats was convicted of murder , for which t he advisory sentence is fifty

- five years , with a minimum sentence of forty

- five years and a maximum sentence of sixty

- five years . Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 3 (2015) . In addition, Seats was convic ted of three Level 4 felonies, for which the advisory sentence is six years , wi th a minimum sentence of two years and a maximum sentence of twelve years. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 5.5 ( 2014 ) . The court sentenced Seats to fifty years for his murder conviction with concurrent sentences of eight years for each of the three Level 4 felonies , for an agg regate sentence of fifty years. Remarkably, Seats’ sentence for his murder conviction is less than the advisory sentence for such an offense

. Indeed, his aggregate sentence is less than the advisory sentence for murder . Additionally, although his senten ces of eight years on his Level 4 felony convictions are just slightly above the advisory sentence , they are significantly below the twelve

year maximum for such felonies.

[17] Next, we look to the nature of the offense s . “ The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances surrounding the offense and the defendant ’ s participation therein.” Morris v. State , 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) , trans. denied (2019)

. Seats and three of his acquaintances burglarized three homes. At the second home, the young men encountered the homeowner, and Seats’ three acquaintances fled. Seats, however, remainedCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 9 of 13

a nd confronted the homeowner , shooting him twice and killing him. After taking Dr. Rodgers’ life, Seats joined his three accomplices in burglarizing yet another home

. Seats has failed to present any evidence that points to the nature of these offenses tha t shows he exercised restraint or regard for human life or the homes or possess ions of others

.
[18] Finally, we turn to the character of the offender. The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the defendant’s life and conduct. I d. The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s character and an appropriate sentence varies based on the gravity, nature, and proximity of prior offenses in relation to the current offense, as well as the number of prior offenses. Sandleben v. State , 29 N.E.3d 126, 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) , trans. denied

. Yet, e ven a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant’s character

. Moss v. State , 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied

.
[19] Seat s’ criminal history is comprised of a December 2016 true finding of dangerous possession of a firearm , a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. Seats committed th e offense when he was just fifteen years old, and his juvenile records with regard to th at offense reflect unsuccessful probation, unsuccessful suspended commitment to the Department of Correction, failure to complete substance abuse evaluation and treatment, and a failed probation sanction. In August 2017, a t the age of sixteen, Seats a dded true findings of seven counts of unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle , all Cl a ss B misdemeanors if committed by an adult, and eight counts of theft, all Class ACourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 10 of 13

misdemeanors if committed by an adult. He was placed unde r the supervision of the juvenile court for nine months with specific conditions for compliance.

[20] Just two months later in October 2017 , while still under the supervision of the juvenile court, Seats committed the offense of attempted armed robbery , a Level 3 felony. T he charge w as originally filed in juvenile court but w as later re

- filed in adult court

. While in custody, Seats’ inmate records reflect two incidents of jail rule violations, an incident of assault, and an incident of disruption of jail operations. Just o ne month later , while still under the supervision of the juvenile court, Seats committed the instan t offenses.

[21] Seats’ actions upon committing this murder further inform us of his violent character. Rather than flee with his accomplices, he remained in side Dr. Rodgers’ home and shot the doctor twice . Then, while Dr. Rodgers lay dying on his kitchen floor, S e ats burglarized the doctor’s home before fleeing and joining the others in burglarizing a third home. Upon completing this crime spree, Seats memorialized the occasion by making videos of himself holding the murder weapon and celebrating.

[22] In addition, the trial court found Seats failed to show or express any remorse for his conduct

. At sentencing , Seats stated to the court, “You know it felt like everything was against me first of all. I would just to like [sic] I ain’t had a fair shake because just everything was against me. I feel like I g ot railroaded basically.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 68. In response, the court stated, “Mr. Seats, I am a little bit disturbed by some of your thought process w hen you were doing yourCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 11 of 13

allocution. I ’ m concerned about how you have processed this whole thing. What I saw on that video was not somebody that considered themselves a

v ictim. But that ’ s w hat I heard from you today. So, I do not find that there is any remorse that you ’ ve shown for what ’ s happened. ” Id. at 75.

[23] T o summarize, the use/misuse of a firearm is a prevalent theme in Seats’ criminal history ; his offenses are violent and serious and quickly escalated in severity ; and, even while the juvenile court was expending effort to ward his rehabilitat ion , he was committing new crimes . Moreover, his callous character and cavalier attitude toward the taking of a human life is evidenced by the cell phone photos and videos. We find no compelling evidence of substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character to support a reduction of Seats’ sentence.

[24] Seats assert s that , at the time of these crimes, he was a juvenile whose character and judgment w ere not fully developed such that he is less culpable than an adult offender . Therefore, he argue s, his sentence is inappropriate and should be reduced.

[25] We are mindful that , as our Supreme Court has explained, “[s] entencing considerations for youthful offenders

— particularly for juveniles

— are not coextensive with those for adults. ” Brown v. State , 10 N.E.3d 1, 6 (Ind. 2014)

. There, the Court determined that a sentence of 150 years for a sixteen

- year - old “‘forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal.’” Id. at 8 (quoting Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 246 5 , 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012) ). TheCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 12 of 13

Court found the sentence to be a “‘ denial of hope; it means that good behavi or and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of the [juvenile] convict, he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.’” Brown , 10 N.E.3d at 8 (quoting Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 70, 130 S. Ct. 2011 , 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010) ). Accordingly, t he Court reduced Brown’s 1 50

- year sentence to eighty years. See Brown , 10 N.E.3d at 8

.
[26] In contrast, the fifty

- year sentence here does not equate to such a denial of hope . Rather, Seats will, in all likelihood , out live his sentence such that behavior modification and character improvement while incarcerated will be useful. Indeed, i n senten cing Seats, the court specifically recommended that he be afforded the opp ortunity to participate in any behavioral modification programs available in the D epartment of C orrection. See Tr. Vol. II, p. 76

. Moreov er , the trial court considered Seats’ age i n determining his sentence and found his age to be the sole mitigating circumstance. The trial court also noted the possible presence of developmental delays but determined they did not overcome Seats’ ability to be able to tell right from wrong. See i d. at 75

. Additionally, Seats’ sentence can hardly be said to be a n extreme punishment, even for a juvenile, when his aggregate sentence for murder and three Level 4 felonies is less than the advisory sentence for the sole offense of murder

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A -C R -8 56 | November 20 , 2020 Page 13 of 13 

## Conclusion
[27] Seats has not met his burden of presenting compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of h is offense s or his character in order to overcome the trial court’s sentencing decision.

[28] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Weissmann, J., concur

.