In a significant ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld multiple felony convictions against Devante Shakur Foster, who was found guilty of armed robbery and other charges related to two incidents involving armored vehicles. The decision, rendered on May 29, 2026, by Chief Judge Tavitas, has implications for Foster and others facing similar charges, particularly concerning prosecutorial conduct and double jeopardy issues.
The case arose from two armed robberies that occurred in December 2021, where Foster and accomplices targeted armored vehicles operated by Loomis Armored Services and Brinks, Inc. The court's opinion, filed under docket number 25A-CR-00325, addressed several key legal issues raised by Foster during his appeal.
Background
Devante Shakur Foster, along with co-defendant Lonnie McGill, was accused of committing armed robberies on December 15 and 16, 2021. The first incident involved the robbery of a Loomis armored vehicle, where a courier was threatened at gunpoint. The second robbery targeted a Brinks vehicle, resulting in the theft of over $843,000. The police investigation linked Foster to both robberies through surveillance footage, vehicle registrations, and physical evidence found during his arrest.
Foster was charged with multiple felonies, including two counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, criminal confinement, and theft. During the trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Darius Moore, a co-defendant who pleaded guilty to his involvement in the robberies. Moore's testimony, however, became a point of contention during the trial, particularly regarding Foster's right to confront witnesses and present a defense.
After a three-day jury trial, Foster was convicted on all counts. He subsequently appealed the verdict, raising issues of prosecutorial misconduct, limitations on cross-examination, and double jeopardy concerns.
The Ruling
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on several aspects of Foster's appeal. The court addressed claims of prosecutorial misconduct, particularly remarks made during closing arguments. Foster's appeal contended that the prosecutor's comments regarding his height and the characterization of Moore's testimony constituted fundamental errors that prejudiced his defense. However, the court found that while the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate, they did not amount to fundamental error that would warrant a reversal of the convictions.
The court stated, "The remark was made during closing argument at the close of trial. Moreover, the trial court instructed the jury that closing arguments are not evidence, and substantial evidence supported the convictions."
Additionally, the court examined whether the trial court violated Foster's constitutional rights by limiting cross-examination of Moore. The court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion to prevent potential perjury from Moore, who indicated he could not answer questions without lying.
On the issue of double jeopardy, the court found that some of Foster's convictions did violate substantive double jeopardy principles. The State conceded that convictions for armed robbery and theft, as well as armed robbery and criminal confinement, were impermissible under double jeopardy rules. Consequently, the court vacated one of the armed robbery convictions while affirming the rest.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Foster, who now faces a reduced sentence following the vacating of one of his armed robbery convictions. The decision also highlights the importance of prosecutorial conduct during trials and the necessity for defendants to preserve objections to alleged misconduct for appeal. The court's findings emphasize the balance between a defendant's right to confront witnesses and the trial court's duty to prevent perjury.
Moreover, the ruling reinforces the double jeopardy protections afforded to defendants in Indiana. By vacating certain convictions, the court upheld the principle that individuals should not be punished multiple times for the same offense, a critical aspect of criminal law.
What's Next
Foster's case may still see further legal action, as he could seek a review by the Indiana Supreme Court regarding the remaining convictions. However, details about any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.