POWELL v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Devin Powell appeals his sentence for murder and asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 30, 2022, Powell requested a ride through Lyft and was connected with driver Anthony Garland. Garland drove to Powell's location in Indianapolis in his 2013 GMC Acadia, and Powell entered the back seat of the vehicle. Powell shot Garland multiple times including in the head. Powell removed Garland's body from the vehicle, drove the vehicle to Merrillville, Indiana, and went to Walmart where he purchased seat covers and air fresheners. Police determined the location of Garland's vehicle using the GPS on the vehicle and learned from Lyft's records that Powell was the last person to request a ride from Garland. Officers stopped the Acadia in Merrillville, Powell was the driver, another man was in the passenger seat, and the officers saw blood stains around the center console. Officers found a firearm under the front seat, and bullets recovered during the autopsy of Garland matched the firearm.

[3] In July 2022, the State charged Powell with murder, felony murder, and robbery resulting in serious bodily injury as a level 2 felony. In November 2024, Powell and the State filed a plea agreement pursuant to which Powell agreed to plead guilty to murder and the parties agreed that his total sentence would not exceed fifty-five years. The plea agreement stated: “Defendant hereby waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed by the Court, including the right to seek appellate review of the sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), so long as the Court sentences the defendant within the terms of this plea agreement.”¹ Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 78. In December 2024, the trial court held a change of plea hearing. The court informed Powell that, if it accepted the plea agreement, it would be bound by its terms. The court found Powell guilty of murder.

[4] On January 27, 2025, the court held a sentencing hearing. Powell's counsel pointed to letters from Powell's family and friends. The court stated:

[H]ow these people describe you doesn't show with the actions that you did to Tony Garland while he was just working. Also a family man, a provider. But he didn't take things from other people. And you shot him multiple times, and in the back of the head. And instead of saying, wow, I shouldn't have done that, you took his car and you tried to clean it up, and then you tried to make it better yourself by getting seat covers and air freshener. It's offensive. A Lyft driver, that's the only thing they have at work is their car, and you took that away from him and just took it as your own.

Transcript Volume II at 38. With respect to mitigating factors, the court stated “you don't have a substantial criminal history,” “imprisonment would result in an undue hardship ․ of your dependents,” and “you worked really hard to create a family for yourself [a]nd you're using all the money that you get, instead of having commissary, ․ you used it for a video visit so you can see your daughter.” Id. With respect to aggravating factors, it found “you had a pending case [a]nd instead of getting help for whatever happened for the theft that you had, you did commit another crime.” Id. at 38-39. It stated “accepting responsibility ․ you got the benefit for getting a cap on the sentence that you got.” Id. at 39. It stated, “the fact that you shot him five times and once in the back of the head and then dumped his body like it was trash ․ that told me what you did that day.” Id. The court sentenced Powell to fifty-five years. The court also stated, “[t]his isn't somebody you had a fight with, this isn't somebody you were buying drugs from. This is somebody who just came to pick you up in a Lyft.” Id. at 40. The following exchange occurred:

[THE COURT:] You have a right to appeal the sentence --

[Prosecutor]: The sentence --

THE COURT: If it's within the terms.

[Prosecutor]: -- within --

THE COURT: The sentence --

[Prosecutor]: -- the terms, yeah --

THE COURT: -- is within the terms, so.

[Prosecutor]: -- but not the conviction.

THE COURT: Yeah, not the conviction.

Id. Powell indicated his wish to appeal, and the court stated, “Okay. I will appoint the Public Defender to represent you and let them know that you wish to appeal the sentence.” Id. at 44. Powell filed a notice of appeal. The State filed a motion to dismiss arguing Powell waived his right to appeal his sentence, and this Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order vacating the dismissal of the appeal and remanding to this Court for the parties to address whether “the State waive[d] the plea agreement's provision foregoing Powell's right to appeal his sentence.” October 10, 2025 Published Order, No. 25A-CR-447.

Discussion

[5] Powell asserts that “[d]ismissal of [his] sentencing appeal was not warranted because the State waived its contractual benefit when it told Powell he could appeal his sentence.” Appellant's Brief at 9. He argues, “the representative of the State who signed the plea agreement ․ was also the person who joined the trial court in telling Powell he had the right to appeal his sentence.” Id. at 10. Powell further contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. He asserts “[t]he murder of Garland was neither more nor less egregious than the typical murder.” Id. at 12. He argues that he “has no other convictions” and that he “saved the State the costs and Garland's family the trauma of a trial by pleading guilty.” Id. at 13. He asks that we revise his sentence to forty-five years.

[6] The State maintains that Powell waived the right to appeal his sentence and that it did not relinquish its right to enforce the waiver. It argues, “[t]he prosecutor's brief misstatement made in response to the trial court's misstatement [ ] did not alter the terms of the plea agreement,” “[a] short and errant reiteration of one agreement term between one party to an agreement and a nonparty cannot be a renegotiation of the terms between the two parties that have reduced their agreement [to] writing,” and “[i]t is a misstatement and nothing more.” Appellee's Brief at 17, 19. It argues that Powell's sentence is not inappropriate. It contends that “[t]he nature of Powell's crime is terrible, callous, [and] selfish” and, “[w]hile on pretrial release for a pending theft charge, [he] planned and executed additional criminal activity.” Id. at 22.

[7] The plea agreement specifically provided: “Defendant hereby waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed by the Court, including the right to seek appellate review of the sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), so long as the Court sentences the defendant within the terms of this plea agreement.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 78. Powell placed his initials by this statement in the agreement. At the change of plea hearing, the court informed Powell that, if it accepted the plea agreement, it would be bound by its terms. In exchange for his agreement to plead guilty and waive his right to appeal his sentence, Powell received the substantial benefit of the State agreeing that his sentence would not exceed fifty-five years. We cannot say that the prosecutor's remark at the end of the sentencing hearing amounted to a modification or abandonment of the waiver provision in the plea agreement. See Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73, 76-77 (Ind. 2008) (“Creech does not claim that the language of the plea agreement was unclear or that he misunderstood the terms of the agreement at the time he signed it ․ By the time the trial court erroneously advised Creech of the possibility of appeal, Creech had already pled guilty and received the benefit of his bargain. Being told at the close of the hearing that he could appeal presumably had no effect on that transaction.”).

[8] Even assuming that Powell may assert that his sentence is inappropriate, we do not find his arguments to be persuasive. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “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 burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether a sentence is inappropriate “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 provides that a person who commits murder shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between forty-five and sixty-five years with the advisory sentence being fifty-five years.

[9] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals Powell's cold and calculated murder of Garland without provocation. Powell requested a ride through Lyft. When Garland arrived, Powell entered the back seat of the vehicle, shot Garland multiple times including in the head, left Garland on the side of the road, and drove away in Garland's vehicle. Powell attempted to conceal his crime by purchasing seat covers and air fresheners. According to the probable cause affidavit, Powell initially lied to police, stating that he found the vehicle as he was walking to a gas station, the vehicle was running, he watched, and, when no one came around, he drove it away. After a break in the interview, Powell admitted to using Lyft to call for a ride and to shooting Garland four times but stated that he shot him in self defense. The court heard evidence regarding the devastating impact of the crime on Garland's wife and son, who was born in 2010.

[10] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Powell pled guilty to murder. However, Powell pled guilty over two years after he was charged, and he received a benefit for pleading guilty as the State agreed that his sentence would not exceed fifty-five years. Further, his decision to plead guilty was likely a pragmatic decision as there was ample evidence of his guilt, including his use of Lyft to call for a ride, his confession that he shot Garland, his purchase of the seat covers and air fresheners, the firearm found under the front seat which was matched to the bullets recovered from Garland's body, and a gun box and a receipt for the firearm were found in Powell's apartment. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicates that Powell was charged with theft as a class A misdemeanor in May 2019 and the case was pending and set for a pretrial conference at the time he committed the murder. The PSI also states that Powell reported that he first used marijuana at age fifteen and used marijuana daily with his most recent use occurring on the date of his arrest for the instant offense. After due consideration, we conclude that Powell has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Powell's sentence for murder.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Powell's initials appear after this statement.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.