MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 20 2019, 10:00 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stanley L. Campbell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DeeDee Barnett, February 20, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2569
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D05-1710-MR-9
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 4
[1] DeeDee Barnett appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after Barnett
pleaded guilty to Murder, arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and his character. Finding that the sentence is not
inappropriate, we affirm.
[2] On October 25, 2017, Barnett approached a vehicle being driven by Jack Florea
and carrying Brian Lowe as a passenger. Barnett shot Lowe in the head. Lowe
was transported to a hospital and later died as a result of the gunshot wound.
[3] On October 27, 2017, the State charged Barnett with murder and included an
enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. On August
29, 2018, the day on which Barnett’s jury trial was scheduled to begin, Barnett
pleaded guilty in exchange for the dismissal of the enhancement. On
September 28, 2018, the trial court sentenced Barnett to a term of sixty-three
years. Barnett now appeals.
[4] Barnett’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is inappropriate in light
of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
provides that this Court may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We must “conduct
[this] review with substantial deference and give ‘due consideration’ to the trial
court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven
the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence . . . .” Knapp v.
State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d
1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 4
[5] For a murder conviction, Barnett faced a sentence of forty-five to sixty-five
years imprisonment, with an advisory term of fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-3. The trial court imposed a term of sixty-three years, which is above the
advisory but less than the maximum possible term.
[6] With respect to the nature of the offense, Barnett committed a cold-blooded
murder. While Barnett claims that Lowe had been a bully in the past, there is
no evidence whatsoever that at the time of the shooting, Barnett was under any
kind of a physical threat. Barnett approached the vehicle and instigated the
shooting. He did so in the presence of a witness, Florea, who is traumatized
because of the incident. The murder occurred the day before Lowe’s daughter’s
eleventh birthday, and following the murder, Lowe’s pregnant fiancée lost her
baby. Lowe’s parents had to make the heart-wrenching decision to remove
their son from life support—on their thirty-fifth wedding anniversary.
[7] As for Barnett’s character, he has an extensive criminal history spanning
decades. His contacts with the criminal justice system began when he was a
juvenile, and as an adult, he has amassed multiple misdemeanor convictions
and a felony domestic battery conviction. Throughout these years, Barnett has
been offered multiple chances of rehabilitation: as a juvenile, probation,
community service, an informal adjustment, and attendance at the Wood
Youth Center; and as an adult, probation, community service, criminal division
services, home detention, short jail sentences, sentences at the Department of
Correction, and parole. Despite these many opportunities, Barnett has
continued to show a lack of respect for the rule of law and his fellow citizens,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 4
ending with the ultimate act of antisocial behavior—taking the life of another
person.
[8] Given these facts, we do not find the sentence imposed by the trial court to be
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Barnett’s character.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2569 | February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 4