Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | 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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Joshua Vincent

Valerie K. Boots

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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 Case 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-CR-856 | 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

felony1and 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 History

[3] The 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 upon 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-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 3 of 13

[5] The four young men next arrived at the home of Dr. Kevin Rodgers.

3

 Blade

knocked on the door, and, believing that no one was inside, all four men went

to the back of the home. They used a paving stone from the yard to break a rear

window to gain entry into the home, and Seats entered the home. After gaining

entry and hearing a voice inside, Merriweather, Bickham-Hurst, and Blade fled

from the home. However, Seats remained inside the home and confronted Dr.

Rodgers, the homeowner. After shooting Dr. Rodgers multiple times, Seats

took several Cathedral High School championship rings and fled from the

home.

[6] Officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD)

responded to a call of a person shot, and first responders found Dr. Rodgers in

the kitchen of his home with two gunshot wounds, one to the abdomen and

another to the head. Medics pronounced Dr. Rodgers dead at the scene. Crime

scene specialists located three shell casings inside the home, and later 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 burglarize a third home that day. The young men forced entry

through a rear bedroom window into a home belonging to Logan Araujo. They

3 Although in the transcript Dr. Rodgers’ surname is spelled “Rogers,” family, friends, and colleagues of the 

victim use the spelling of “Rodgers” in the numerous victim impact letters submitted in this case. Thus, we 

presume “Rodgers” is the correct spelling of the victim’s surname and use it here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 4 of 13

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

semi-automatic handgun, a shotgun, several watches, and a diamond ring.

[8] Later that afternoon, police stopped a vehicle that had come from Seats’ home,

and in the trunk of the vehicle they found a 9 millimeter semi-automatic

handgun that a firearms examiner later determined was the gun that had fired

the shell casings found in Dr. Rodgers’ home. In another vehicle, police

recovered several Cathedral High School athletic championship rings that were

stolen from Dr. Rodgers’ home, and subsequent analysis revealed that a DNA

sample collected from Seats matched DNA found on the rings. Additionally,

police found Eric Cummings’ stolen laptop in a vehicle occupied by Blade,

Seats, and Merriweather. During the investigation, police also seized the cell

phones of all four men. Forensic analysis of their cell phones yielded photos

and videos taken on November 20th. In the videos, Merriweather, Blade,

Bickham-Hurst, and Seats are holding the gun used to kill Dr. Rodgers and the

firearm stolen from Logan Araujo’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] The 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, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 5 of 13

Level 4 felony; Count V burglary, a Level 4 felony; and Count VI burglary, a 

Level 4 felony. A jury trial was set to begin on 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 to 

plead guilty to Count I murder and to Counts 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 concurrently 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; took the matter under further 

advisement; and set the matter for a sentencing hearing date.

[11] Seats’ sentencing hearing was scheduled for February 13th. On the day of

sentencing, Seats’ counsel informed the court that Seats did not want to proceed

with the plea agreement. The trial court requested the parties to submit briefs

on the issue of whether the court could “hold [Seats] to his plea agreement.” Id.

at 29. After receiving the parties’ briefs/submissions, the court held a hearing

on February 27th, 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 commented upon Seats’ allegation in his brief/submission

and argument to the court that he had difficulty understanding the proceedings,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | 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. So, he does understand what the plea agreement is 

and what it means.” Id. at 36-37. In addition, the court stated, “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] On March 12th, the trial court held Seats’ sentencing 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’ mother testified on his behalf. The court sentenced 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

the 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, he suggests that his sentence should be revised 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 authorize
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 7 of 13

independent appellate review and revision of sentences through Indiana 

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 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). 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 (such as 

substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character). Stephenson 

v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Thus, 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. King v. State, 894 

N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The defendant bears the burden of 

persuading the appellate court that 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 case
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 8 of 13

herein, where the plea agreement capped Seats’ aggregate sentence at fifty 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 the 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 convicted of three Level 4

felonies, for which the advisory sentence is six years, with 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

aggregate 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 sentences of eight years on his Level 4 felony convictions are just

slightly above the advisory sentence, they are significantly below the twelveyear maximum for such felonies.

[17] Next, we look to the nature of the offenses. “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, remained
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 9 of 13

and 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 that shows he exercised restraint or regard for human life or 

the homes or possessions 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. Id. 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, even 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] Seats’ 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 the offense when he was just fifteen years old, and his

juvenile records with regard to that 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, at the age of sixteen, Seats added true findings of

seven counts of unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle, all Class B

misdemeanors if committed by an adult, and eight counts of theft, all Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 10 of 13

misdemeanors if committed by an adult. He was placed under 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. The charge was originally filed in juvenile court but was 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 one month later, while still under the supervision of the

juvenile court, Seats committed the instant offenses.

[21] Seats’ actions upon committing this murder further inform us of his violent

character. Rather than flee with his accomplices, he remained inside Dr.

Rodgers’ home and shot the doctor twice. Then, while Dr. Rodgers lay dying

on his kitchen floor, Seats 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 got 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 when you were doing your
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | 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 

victim. But that’s what 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] To 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 toward his

rehabilitation, 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 asserts that, at the time of these crimes, he was a juvenile whose character

and judgment were not fully developed such that he is less culpable than an

adult offender. Therefore, he argues, 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, 2465, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012)). The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-856 | November 20, 2020 Page 12 of 13

Court found the sentence to be a “‘denial of hope; it means that good behavior 

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, the Court reduced Brown’s 150-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, outlive his sentence such that

behavior modification and character improvement while incarcerated will be

useful. Indeed, in sentencing Seats, the court specifically recommended that he

be afforded the opportunity to participate in any behavioral modification

programs available in the Department of Correction. See Tr. Vol. II, p. 76.

Moreover, the trial court considered Seats’ age in 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 id. at 75.

Additionally, Seats’ sentence can hardly be said to be an 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-CR-856 | 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 his offenses or his character in order to overcome the

trial court’s sentencing decision.

[28] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.