Darrell Devon Davis, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Darrell Devon Davis appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine, as a Level 5 felony, and possession of paraphernalia, as a Class C misdemeanor, as well as his corresponding sentence. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Davis raises the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted certain evidence.

2. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At approximately 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, police officers with the Huntington City Police Department received a dispatch regarding a stolen vehicle located at the Viking Express gas station. Officer Carren Franke was the first to respond to the scene, and she located the vehicle and conducted a felony stop. Officer Franke ordered the driver, who was later identified as Davis, to throw the keys out of the vehicle. In response, Davis “jumped” out of the car with his cell phone in one hand and a doughnut in the other. Tr. Vol. 2 at 155. Officer Franke asked him to place the items on top of the car and to place his hands on the back of his head. Davis “refused” and instead “started to make a call.” Id.

[4] Other officers arrived, and they were able to detain Davis. Davis then informed officers that he had a firearm under the driver's seat. Officers noticed “a very strong odor of marijuana,” so they searched the car. Id. at 202. During the search, an officer found a “pill bottle with no label on it that had some sort of residue inside” in the center console. Id. at 204. Upon further examination, the officer observed a “snort tube,”¹ a razor blade, and a “powdery substance” inside the pill bottle. Id. at 205. The powder field tested positive for methamphetamine, but later testing by the Indiana State Police laboratory confirmed that it was cocaine.

[5] The State charged Davis with possession of cocaine, as a Level 5 felony, and possession of paraphernalia, as a Class C misdemeanor. The court held a two-day jury trial on Davis's charges. During Officer Franke's testimony, the State had admitted photographs of the pill bottle found in the car. In addition, a forensic scientist with the Indiana State Police laboratory testified that the residue in the pill bottle had tested positive for cocaine. The State then had admitted a certificate of analysis the forensic scientist had prepared. Davis did not object to any of that evidence. Further, an officer with the Huntington County Sheriff's Department, who was serving as a school resource officer at Huntington North High School, testified that the parking lot where Davis was found was located on a street that “leads directly into the student parking area” of the high school and that school “was in session” at the time of the dispatch. Id. at 220.

[6] The jury found Davis guilty of both charges. During the ensuing sentencing hearing, the court identified as aggravators Davis's criminal history and his “repeated failure to comply with court orders.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 91. The court did not identify any mitigators. As a result, the court sentenced Davis to concurrent terms of five years on the Level 5 felony conviction and sixty days on the Class C misdemeanor conviction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Admission of Evidence

[7] Davis first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the pill bottle and its contents as evidence. As our Supreme Court has stated:

Generally, a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence is accorded a great deal of deference on appeal. Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion and only reverse if a ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015) (citation modified).

[8] Davis specifically contends that the court abused its discretion when it admitted that evidence because the State “failed to establish a proper chain of custody” for the pill bottle and its contents. Appellant's Br. at 15. To support his assertion, Davis relies on the evidence continuity sheets, which he contends were “repeatedly modified and doctored[.]” Id. However, we agree with the State that Davis has failed to preserve this issue for our review.

[9] It is well settled that a contemporaneous objection at the time the evidence is introduced at trial is required to preserve the issue for appeal. Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010). Here, when the State moved to admit the photos of the pill bottle during Officer Franke's testimony, Davis stated that he had “[n]o objection.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 178. Further, Davis did not object to any of Officer Franke's testimony that the pill bottle contained a razor blade, a straw, or a “powder residue.” Id. Additionally, Davis did not object to the forensic scientist's testimony that the pill bottle residue had tested positive for cocaine. And when the State moved to admit her certificate of analysis, Davis stated that he did not “have any objection to the ․ report and analysis as it pertains to” the pill bottle.² Tr. Vol. 3 at 19. Because Davis did not object to the admission of the pill bottle, the testimony that it contained cocaine, or the certificate of analysis that confirmed that the pill bottle contained cocaine, Davis has failed to preserve this issue for our review.

Issue Two: Appropriateness of Sentence

[10] Davis next asserts 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), trans. denied. 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).

[11] 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 factors 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).

[12] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2025). And a person faces a term of not more than sixty days for a Class C misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-50-3-4. Here, the court sentenced Davis to five years on the felony conviction and sixty days on the misdemeanor conviction, to run concurrently, for an aggregate term of five years fully executed in the Department of Correction.

[13] On appeal, Davis contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses because the “crimes were non-violent,” there was no specific victim, and the amount of cocaine was “extremely miniscule[.]” Appellant's Br. at 17-18. And Davis argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because his criminal history is “very slight,” he has a dependent child, he attended Ivy Tech, and he “was employed prior to becoming incarcerated in this matter.” Id.

[14] However, Davis has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. Regarding the nature of the offenses, we acknowledge that the amount Davis possessed was minimal. However, the statute under which Davis was charged does not require a minimum amount to support a conviction.³ Further, Davis possessed the cocaine while he possessed a firearm and while within five hundred feet of a school at a time that the school was in session. In addition, he possessed paraphernalia in the form of a “snort tube,” which is an item “that would be [used] to introduce the illicit substance” into a body, and a razor blade. Tr. Vol. 2 at 205. Davis has not presented any evidence portraying the offenses in a positive light.

[15] As for his character, Davis has five prior misdemeanor convictions. “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Further, Davis failed to cooperate in the completion of his presentence investigation report, which reflects poorly on his character. Davis has not presented compelling evidence of substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character. We cannot say that Davis's sentence is inappropriate.

Conclusion

[16] Davis did not object to the evidence related to the pill bottle or its contents, so he has failed to preserve any argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted those pieces of evidence. And Davis's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses or his character. We therefore affirm his convictions and sentence.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A snort tube is “a device that would be [used] to introduce the illicit substance into your body.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 205.

2.   Davis objected to the report only as it related to “item 2, which is the packaging of the marijuana[.]” Tr. Vol. 3 at 19.

3.   The offense for possessing cocaine is a Level 5 felony if the amount of cocaine is more than five grams or if the amount is less than five grams but an enhancing circumstance applies. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(b). Davis was convicted of the Level 5 felony based not on the amount of cocaine but because he possessed the cocaine while in possession of a firearm and while within five hundred feet of a school. See I.C. § 35-48-1.1-18(2) and (3).

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.