Demarco Cameo Guy, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Demarco Cameo Guy appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to two counts of armed robbery, as Level 3 felonies. Guy raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 23, 2023, Guy, along with Jerron Appleton and James Krout, entered an Exxon gas station wearing “hoodies and masks.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 57. There were two other people already in the gas station, employee Analiza Perez and customer William Pollack. Appleton and Krout went behind the counter and began to empty the cigarettes into bags. Guy “pulled out a black sawed[-]off side by side shotgun” from the sleeve of his hoodie and held it to Pollack's back. Id. He also placed his hands inside Pollack's pockets. Guy then went behind the counter and ordered Perez to open the register. Perez complied, and Guy took “the register till containing cash.” Id. Guy, Appleton, and Krout left the gas station. Appleton and Krout got back into their vehicle, but Guy got into Pollock's car and drove away.

[3] On December 23, Guy entered a BP gas station and “confronted” employee Nithin Pasalavadi “with a shotgun that was hidden in the long sleeve of his right arm.” Id at 58. Guy asked Pasalavadi about the location of the money and then demanded that Pasalavadi open the cash registers. Pasalavadi complied, and Guy “took all of the money” out of the register. Id. at 58. Guy then began to grab cartons of cigarettes and placed them in the bag. Guy also “demanded” that Pasalavadi open the safe, and Pasalavadi again complied. Guy “took all of the money” out of the safe and “fled” from the gas station. Id.

[4] The State charged Guy in Cause Number 45G01-2401-F3-8 (“F3-8”) with three counts of armed robbery, as Level 3 felonies; two counts of criminal confinement, as Level 3 felonies; and one count of auto theft, as a Level 6 felony, based on his actions at the Exxon gas station. And the State charged Guy in Cause Number 45G01-2312-F3-145 (“F3-145”) with armed robbery, as a Level 3 felony; armed robbery, as a Level 5 felony; intimidation, as a Level 5 felony; theft, as a Level 6 felony; and theft, as a Class A misdemeanor, based on his actions at the BP gas station. The State also charged Guy with nine other counts in another two cause numbers.

[5] Thereafter, Guy and the State entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which Guy agreed to plead guilty to one count of armed robbery in F3-8 and one count of armed robbery in F3-145. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts in both of those cause numbers as well as the other two cause numbers in their entirety. The parties also agreed that they are “free to fully argue their respective positions” as to sentencing, but that “there shall be a maximum cap of nine (9) years” on each count. Id. at 54.

[6] Following a sentencing hearing, the court accepted Guy's guilty plea and entered judgment of conviction accordingly. The court then sentenced Guy to nine years on each count, to run consecutively, for an aggregate term of eighteen years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Guy contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” This Court has held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). And the Indiana Supreme Court has previously explained that:

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers ․ but not achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[8] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).

[9] The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is three years to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the parties agreed to a maximum sentence of nine years on each count. And, here, following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Guy to nine years on each count, to run consecutively, for an aggregate term of eighteen years. Thus, while Guy received the maximum sentence allowed under the plea agreement, it was still the advisory sentence.

[10] On appeal, Guy contends that his sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the offenses because “[a]ll robberies involve the inducement of fear in alleged victims” and because the “significance of the use of a firearm in the robbery is reflected in the legislature's sentencing guidelines.” Appellant's Br. at 10. And he contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because he “is a family man,” he “admitted to his offenses and pled guilty,” he “expressed his remorse,” and his prior convictions “were not closely related to his current offenses.” Id. at 9.

[11] However, Guy has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. Regarding the nature of the offenses, Guy robbed two gas stations within one month. During the first offense, Guy used a sawed-off shotgun to threaten Pollack and Perez. Guy placed the shotgun to Pollack's back and then placed his hands into Pollock's pocket. He then threatened Perez with the shotgun and stole all of the money from the register. Guy then proceeded to leave the gas station, and he stole Pollack's car. During the second offense, Guy again used a shotgun to threaten the employee of the gas station to steal money from the register, cigarettes, and money from the safe. Guy has not presented compelling evidence portraying the nature of the offense in a positive light. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[12] As for his character, Guy has a criminal history that includes two adjudications as a juvenile and two prior felony convictions. In addition, he has had his placement on probation revoked. And Guy continues to use illegal substances, which reflects poorly on his character. Indeed, during his statement at sentencing, Guy acknowledged that he “needed money to support [his] habit[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 53. We cannot say that Guy's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his character.

Conclusion

[13] Guy's sentence, which was the advisory sentence on each count, is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses or his character. We therefore affirm his sentence.

[14] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.