Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 1 of 11

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

Megan Shipley

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tina L. Mann

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darnell R. Brock,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 23, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-276

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Alicia A. Gooden, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

49G21-1804-F2-11218

49G21-1809-F2-30954

49G21-1810-F4-35728

Shepard, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 2 of 11

[1] The State opened three cases against Darnell R. Brock, charging him with the 

following offenses in total: eleven charges of dealing in or possessing controlled 

substances, possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon, and being a 

habitual offender. Brock pleaded guilty as charged without a plea agreement. 

The trial court entered judgment on eight of the eleven charges plus the 

sentencing enhancement and sentenced Brock to forty-six years, with four years 

suspended to community corrections. Brock appeals, and we affirm.

Issues

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

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in identifying 

aggravating sentencing factors; and

II. Whether Brock’s sentence is inappropriate.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In July 2017, detectives with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department

(“IMPD”) investigated Brock after receiving information that he dealt in 

controlled substances. The investigation culminated in the detectives visiting 

Brock at his home on August 8, 2017. Brock granted them written permission 

to search his home, and they found controlled substances and guns.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 3 of 11

[4] On April 5, 2018,1the State filed charges in Case Number 49G21-1804-F2-

11218 (“F2-11218”), alleging Brock had committed two counts of dealing in a 

narcotic drug weighing ten grams or more, both Level 2 felonies; three counts 

of possession of a narcotic drug, all Level 3 felonies; and unlawful possession of 

a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony. The State subsequently 

filed a habitual offender sentencing enhancement. Officers arrested Brock on 

April 7, 2018, and he was released on bond.

[5] Four months later, on August 2, 2018, IMPD detectives were dispatched to a 

towing company’s impound yard to investigate a report of a possible controlled 

substance found in an impounded vehicle. When the detectives arrived, one of 

them recognized Brock, who was standing across the street from the yard.

[6] Inside the yard, the detectives learned that Brock had presented his 

identification to an employee of the company. Brock had then asked the

employee to retrieve a personal item that was hidden in his car. The employee 

had opened a secret compartment, found a plastic bag containing a powdery 

substance, and called the police. Subsequent testing revealed the substance was

heroin. Brock was gone by the time the detectives went back outside.

[7] Four weeks after that, on September 4, 2018, Brock failed to appear for a 

hearing in F2-11218, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On September 14, 

1 The record does not provide an explanation for the gap in time between the search of Brock’s home in 2017 

and the filing of charges in 2018.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 4 of 11

2018, the State filed charges arising from the salvage yard events, alleging Brock 

had committed the offenses of dealing in a narcotic drug weighing ten grams or 

more, a Level 2 felony, and possession of a narcotic drug, a Level 3 felony, in 

connection with the heroin that was found in his car. Cause Number 49G21-

1809-F2-30954 (“F2-30954”). A warrant was issued for his arrest in that case.

[8] Next, on October 5, 2018, IMPD officers acting on a tip found Brock in a 

parking lot and arrested him. Officers searched his vehicle and discovered a 

variety of controlled substances. A few weeks later, the State opened Case 

Number 49G21-1810-F4-35728 (“F4-35728”), charging Brock with two counts 

of possession of a narcotic drug, both Level 4 felonies; possession of cocaine, a 

Level 5 felony; and possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor.

[9] Brock pleaded guilty as charged in all three cases, without a plea agreement. 

On January 8, 2020, the trial court held a hearing, during which it accepted 

Brock’s guilty plea in the three cases. The court declined to enter judgment on 

several counts based on double jeopardy. Next, the trial court sentenced Brock

as follows, starting with F2-11218:

Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug 18 years plus 8 years for the 

habitual offender enhancement

Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug 18 years

Level 3 felony possession of a narcotic drug 15 years

Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a serious violent offender

12 years
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 5 of 11

All sentences are to be served concurrently, for a total sentence of twenty-six 

years.

[10] In F2-30954, the court sentenced Brock to twenty years on one conviction of 

Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, with four years suspended to 

community corrections. It ordered Brock to serve this sentence consecutively to 

the sentence in F2-11218 but indicated that it would consider modifying this 

sentence after Brock served eight years.

[11] As for F4-35728, the court imposed the following sentences:

Level 4 possession of a narcotic drug 6 years

Level 4 possession of a narcotic drug 6 years

Level 5 possession of cocaine 3 years

Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana 180 days

The sentences are to be served concurrently, for a total of six years. In addition, 

the court ordered Brock to serve the six-year sentence consecutively to the 

twenty-six-year sentence in F2-11218 but concurrently with the twenty-year 

sentence in F2-30954, for an aggregate sentence of forty-six years, with four 

years suspended to community corrections, plus the possibility of sentence 

modification in the future. This appeal followed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 6 of 11

Discussion and Decision

I. Sentencing – Aggravating Factors

[12] Brock argues the trial court erred by considering an aggravating sentencing

factor that was unsupported by evidence. Sentencing decisions rest within the 

sound discretion of the trial court. Lamar v. State, 915 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2009). We review the court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of 

discretion. Mays v. State, 982 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Among the 

ways in which the trial court may abuse its sentencing discretion is issuing a 

sentencing statement that explains reasons for imposing a sentence, “but the 

record does not support the reasons . . . .” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 

490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007).

[13] The trial court determined that Brock’s criminal history, his being on probation 

when he committed the offenses in F2-11218, and the nature and circumstances 

of the offenses were aggravating factors. In addition, as to F2-30954, the court 

noted as an aggravating factor that Brock was out on bond in F2-11218 when 

he committed the offense. While discussing the details of the nature and 

circumstances of the offenses, the court noted that in F2-11218, detectives 

found 150 grams of heroin and 21 grams of fentanyl in Brock’s house, and in 

F2-30954, detectives found 45 grams of heroin in Brock’s car.

[14] Brock claims the trial court’s discussion of specific drug amounts was 

unsupported by evidence. He appears to be correct. During the guilty plea and 

sentencing hearing, Brock admitted only that he dealt in controlled substances 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 7 of 11

in amounts that exceeded the levels set by the applicable statutes (ten grams). 

And the State explicitly declined the trial court’s offer to present evidence, 

choosing instead to merely discuss the amounts of drugs at issue in its 

sentencing presentation.

2

 For the sake of argument, the trial court may have 

erred in considering the specific amounts of the controlled substances to be part 

of the nature and circumstances of the offenses due to the lack of properly 

admitted supporting evidence. But even if the trial court is found to have 

abused its discretion in sentencing, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed 

was not inappropriate. Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), 

trans. denied. We thus turn to Brock’s inappropriateness claim.

II. Sentencing - Inappropriateness

[15] Brock argues his forty-six-year sentence is too harsh and asks the Court to 

reduce it to forty-one years, with ten years served on community corrections 

and five years served on probation. Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana 

Constitution authorizes the Court to review and revise sentences. This 

authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), under which we 

may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the 

trial court’s decision, we find the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offense and the character of the offender.

2 The presentence investigation report does not identify the amounts of controlled substances relevant to each 

offense. In addition, although the report references the probable cause affidavits, the affidavits were not 

attached to the report.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 8 of 11

[16] The principle role of the Court’s review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to 

“attempt to leaven the outliers.” Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 

2018). Sentencing is principally a discretionary function, and deference to the 

trial court “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). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating 

that the sentence is inappropriate. Robinson, 91 N.E.3d at 577.

[17] The advisory sentence is the starting point the General Assembly has selected as 

appropriate for the crime committed. Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 

2011). The General Assembly has also designated minimum and maximum 

sentences for each level of felony offenses. When Brock committed his 

offenses, the sentencing statutes provided:

Offense Advisory 

Sentence

Minimum 

Sentence

Maximum 

Sentence

Statute

Level 2 felony 17 and 1⁄2 

years

10 years 30 years Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-4.5 (2014)

Level 3 felony 9 years 3 years 16 years Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-5 (2014)

Level 4 felony 6 years 2 years 12 years Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-5.5 (2014)

Level 5 felony 3 years 1 year 6 years Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-6 (2014)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 9 of 11

Class A 

misdemeanor

N/A N/A 1 year Ind. Code § 35-

50-3-2 (1977)

Further, a trial court imposing a habitual offender enhancement may increase a 

felony sentence by six to twenty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i) (2017).

[18] The trial court’s sentences for Brock’s convictions were for the most part only 

slightly above the advisory levels set by statute. The court imposed only one

maximum sentence, on Brock’s conviction of Level 4 felony unlawful 

possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon, and it ran that sentence 

concurrent. In addition, Brock’s sentence for Level 3 felony possession of a 

narcotic drug was one year shy of the maximum. But the trial court also 

ordered Brock to serve a good many of the sentences in the three cases 

concurrently, such that the total sentence was well short of the maximum 

possible sentence the trial court could have imposed. Further, the trial court 

offered to consider modifying Brock’s sentence in the future.

[19] Brock argues that the nature of his offenses is not egregious. We disagree. 

When we exercise our review and revision power under Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B), we may consider any evidence included in the record. Spitler v. State, 908 

N.E.2d 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

[20] In F2-11218, Brock was on probation at the time the detectives began their 

investigation into his activities. Turning to F2-30954, Brock was out on bond in 

F2-11218 when he sought to retrieve the heroin from his impounded car, 

demonstrating that he was not deterred from committing crimes even when 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 10 of 11

facing serious criminal charges. Finally, in F4-35728, when the officers 

searched Brock’s car after his arrest, they found an array of controlled 

substances that was more consistent with dealing, rather than possession for 

personal use. In short, the nature of the offenses shows Brock abjectly refused

to comply with the law and intended to continue committing serious offenses.

[21] Turning to the character of the offender, Brock was thirty-five years old at 

sentencing. He has accumulated seven prior felony convictions: two counts of 

C felony possession of a handgun without a license; two counts of D felony 

possession of a narcotic drug; D felony resisting law enforcement; D felony 

possession of marijuana; and Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. The 

marijuana conviction and one of the handgun convictions were the predicate 

felonies for the habitual offender sentencing enhancement in F2-11218. In 

addition, Brock has prior misdemeanor convictions for driving with a

suspended license (3 convictions), possession of marijuana, and possession of a 

controlled substance.

[22] Brock accrued his convictions over several years. In addition, over time he has 

escalated his criminal activity from possessing controlled substances to dealing 

in them. It also reflects poorly on Brock that he continues to possess firearms

after repeated convictions. He has been afforded probation and home 

detention, and he has violated the terms of probation four times.

[23] Brock argues that he has taken responsibility for his crimes because he pleaded 

guilty without an agreement. While a guilty plea that provides no benefit to a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-276 | October 23, 2020 Page 11 of 11

defendant is generally entitled to mitigating weight, such a plea “is not 

necessarily a significant mitigating factor” where the evidence of guilt is 

substantial. Scott v. State, 840 N.E.2d 376, 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

(determining Scott’s guilty plea was entitled to less weight because an 

eyewitness could identify Scott as the robber), trans. denied. In each of Brock’s 

three cases, the evidence of his guilt was substantial. He has failed to 

demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. It follows that any error by the 

trial court in identifying aggravating sentencing factors was harmless.

Conclusion

[24] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[25] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.