Zaiden M. Guy, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Zaiden M. Guy (“Guy”) appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to felony murder.¹ Guy argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for alternative juvenile sentencing. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Guy's request for alternative juvenile sentencing.

Facts

[3] In March 2024, thirteen-year-old Guy, who was armed with a handgun, entered a Circle K store (“the store”). Guy entered the store because twenty-four-year-old Byron Dennis (“Dennis”) was inside, and Guy wanted to take Dennis’ gun. Guy approached Dennis and attempted to take Dennis’ gun. During the struggle for Dennis’ gun, Guy drew his own handgun and shot Dennis. While Dennis was lying on the ground with a gunshot wound, Guy took Dennis’ gun and left the store. Dennis died from his injury.

[4] Later that month, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that Guy had committed what would have been murder, felony murder, Level 2 felony robbery causing serious bodily injury, Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun, Level 5 felony theft, and Level 5 felony criminal recklessness if committed by an adult. The State filed a motion for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction to adult court, and the juvenile court granted the State's motion. In its order, the juvenile court specifically found that:

(5) It is not in the best interests of the safety and the welfare of the community for the juvenile to remain in the juvenile justice system. The child has a history of juvenile offenses including a Level 5 felony adjudication for Battery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, and prior resisting law enforcement adjudications. The child poses a substantial risk to the community.

(App. Vol. 2 at 16).

[5] In April 2024, the State charged Guy, in adult court, with murder, felony murder, Level 2 felony robbery causing serious bodily injury, Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun, Level 5 felony theft, and Level 5 felony criminal recklessness.

[6] In April 2025, the trial court held a change of plea hearing. During the hearing, Guy expressed his intent to request alternative juvenile sentencing. Guy pleaded guilty, without the benefit of a plea agreement, to felony murder, Level 2 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury, Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun, and Level 5 felony theft.² That same day, Guy filed a motion for alternative juvenile sentencing. The trial court took Guy's plea under advisement, ordered a presentence investigation report (“PSI”), and ordered that the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) conduct a diagnostic evaluation of Guy.

[7] The PSI revealed that Guy had prior juvenile delinquency adjudications for committing what would have been Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. Guy had been placed on informal probation for these delinquency adjudications. The PSI also revealed that Guy had a juvenile delinquency adjudication for committing what would have been Level 6 felony battery on a public safety official if committed by an adult. Guy had been placed on six months of probation for this delinquency adjudication in January 2024. Further, the PSI revealed that Guy had informal adjustments for committing what would have been Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana if committed by an adult, and for the status offense of leaving home without the permission of a parent. Additionally, the DOC diagnostic evaluation revealed that, although some detention reports describe Guy's behavior as good, the detention reports also noted that Guy regularly argued with staff and could be very defiant. Additionally, Guy drew a picture of a Glock during a game of Pictionary and also used Dennis’ name during a game of hangman.

[8] In July 2025, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. During the hearing, the State presented, and the trial court admitted, video footage from the store showing Guy shooting Dennis and taking Dennis’ gun. The footage showed a woman and child witness the shooting. During his allocution, Guy told the trial court that he was “very sorry for what” he had done and that he was sorry for the “damage [he had] caused to the Dennis family[.]” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 34).

[9] Before argument, the State dismissed the Level 2 felony robbery causing serious bodily injury charge and the Level 5 felony theft charge due to double jeopardy concerns, and the trial court dismissed the Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun charge for the same reason. Thus, the trial court proceeded to sentencing Guy on the felony murder conviction.

[10] Guy asked for alternative juvenile sentencing and also suggested that the trial court should consider, under Indiana Code § 31-30-4-5, a later modification when Guy turned eighteen-years-old with a hearing to be done before he turned nineteen-years-old. The trial court denied both requests.

[11] The trial court found as aggravating circumstances: (1) Guy's juvenile record; (2) Guy's commission of this offense while on probation; (3) Guy's commission of this offense in the presence of a child; and (4) the manner in which the offense was committed. The trial court found as mitigating circumstances: (1) Guy's young age; (2) genuine remorse; and (3) guilty plea.

[12] The trial court noted that it had received and reviewed the DOC's diagnostic evaluation report, which had given the trial court “some insight into sort of what's going on with Mr. Guy.” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 44). Additionally, the trial court noted that it had looked at and considered the alternative juvenile sentencing as well as the statute and stated that it “just [did not] find that workable for [it], given the circumstances and what [it had] seen from the diagnostic ․ report” and “the nature of this case[.]” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 46). The trial court also mentioned “the seriousness of the acts” during its statement. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 46). Ultimately, the trial court stated that it was “not going down that road.” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 46). Also, the trial court noted that, if Guy showed growth over time, the victim's family “might consent to a modification at some point in the distant future” and that it encouraged Guy to take “advantage of what's offered to [him]” at the DOC. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 46).

[13] The trial court sentenced Guy to fifty (50) years, with forty-five (45) years executed at the DOC and five (5) years suspended to probation.

[14] Guy now appeals.

Decision

[15] Guy argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for alternative juvenile sentencing. “[W]e review for abuse of discretion a trial court's decision on whether to apply an alternative sentencing scheme.” Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 94-95 (Ind. 2021) (citing Legg v. State, 22 N.E.3d 763, 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied).

[16] “When sentencing a child offender in adult court, a trial court essentially has two choices.” James v. State, 178 N.E.3d 1236, 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. The trial court may sentence the child in accordance with adult sentencing statutes. Id. Alternatively, if the child is eligible, the trial court may elect to send the child to a juvenile facility instead of adult prison. See Ind. Code § 31-30-4-2. Children eligible for the sentencing alternative include those under the age of eighteen who are convicted of a felony in adult court after waiver from juvenile court. See I.C. § 31-30-4-2(a)(1).

[17] “The alternative sentencing scheme does not provide factors for courts to consider when deciding whether the scheme should apply.” Harris, 165 N.E.3d at 99. However, in Legg, our Court “found the factors for determining whether to waive a child into adult court instructive in this context.” Id. “Those factors include the severity of the act or whether it is part of a pattern of acts; whether the child is beyond rehabilitation under the juvenile justice system; and whether it is in the best interests of the community that the child be tried as an adult.” Id. (citing I.C. § 31-30-3-2) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Legg, we noted that these factors are “instructive” and are “good examples of the kinds of criteria a trial court may consider in reaching its decision on this issue.” Legg, 22 N.E.3d at 767.

[18] Regarding the first factor, our review of the record reveals that the trial court found that Guy's acts were severe and part of a pattern of acts. Specifically, the trial court found as an aggravating circumstance the manner in which the offense was committed and the fact that the offense was committed in the presence of a child. Additionally, before sentencing Guy, the trial court stated that it did not find alternative juvenile sentencing appropriate, in part, due to the nature of the case and the seriousness of the acts. Indeed, thirteen-year-old Guy entered the store with the intent to steal Dennis’ gun, shot and killed Dennis, and left the store with Dennis’ gun.

[19] Further, the trial court found as aggravating circumstances Guy's juvenile history and the fact that Guy had committed this offense while on probation. These aggravating circumstances are the trial court's acknowledgement of Guy's pattern of acts. The PSI revealed that Guy has multiple informal adjustments as well as adjudications resulting in him being placed on probation. We note that some of Guy's offenses leading to informal adjustments and probation included violent acts such as battery. As for the second factor, although the trial court did not explicitly make a finding that Guy was beyond rehabilitation under the juvenile justice system, the trial court's acknowledgement of Guy's juvenile history implicitly makes that point.

[20] Finally, turning to the third factor, we acknowledge that the trial court made no specific finding that it was in the best interests of the community that Guy be tried as an adult. However, the juvenile court made that exact finding in its order waiving Guy into adult court. To the extent that Guy argues that the trial court abused its discretion in not explicitly stating the factors above, we note that the factors are instructive and not mandatory. Further, Guy has directed us to no authority providing that the trial court must explicitly state the factors when deciding whether to apply juvenile alternative sentencing to a case. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Guy's motion for alternative juvenile sentencing. See Legg, 22 N.E.3d at 767 (holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined a defendant's motion for alternative juvenile sentencing where defendant was charged with murder, the act was committed in front of a juvenile, and the act was part of a pattern of other delinquent acts). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Indiana Code § 35-42-1-1(2).

2.   The State ultimately dismissed the murder charge and the Level 5 felony criminal recklessness charge at the sentencing hearing.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Foley, J., concur.