MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing May 24 2017, 10:25 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald J. Frew Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Cedric L. Edwards, May 24, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A04-1701-CR-31
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1607-F6-786
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-31 | May 24, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Defendant Cedric L. Edwards was arrested on July 10, 2016, after he
was found in possession of a hypodermic needle. On July 14, 2016, Edwards
was charged with Level 6 felony possession of a syringe. Edwards subsequently
entered into an agreement with Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the
State”) under the terms of which it was agreed that Edwards would plead guilty
in exchange for being placed in Allen County’s drug court program. It was
further agreed that upon Edwards’s successful completion of the drug court
program, the State would move to vacate Edwards’s guilty plea and dismiss the
Level 6 felony charge. Edwards, however, failed to successfully complete the
drug court program.
[2] Given Edwards’s failure to successfully complete the program, the State filed a
petition to revoke Edwards’s participation in the program, alleging that
Edwards had committed multiple violations of the conditions and requirements
of the program. Edwards admitted to the allegations contained within the
State’s petition, after which the trial court sentenced him to a two-year executed
sentence. On appeal, Edwards contends that the two-year sentence imposed by
the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his
character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-31 | May 24, 2017 Page 2 of 6
[3] Edwards was the subject of an active warrant on July 10, 2016, when law
enforcement officers located him sitting in a van behind a hotel in Fort Wayne.
The probable cause affidavit supporting Edwards’s arrest indicates that while
the law enforcement officers were speaking to Edwards, they observed him
“frantically dig his left hand into his left front pants pocket and retrieve a
hypodermic needle.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II – Confidential, p. 12.
Hypodermic needles, like the one found in Edwards’s possession, are frequently
used to inject narcotics into the body. Edwards was subsequently placed under
arrest for both his possession of the hypodermic needle and the active warrant.
[4] On July 14, 2016, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) charged
Edwards with Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. On August 1,
2016, Edwards pled guilty to the Level 6 felony possession charge after he and
the State entered into a drug court participation agreement. Pursuant to the
terms of this agreement, Edwards agreed to (1) plead guilty to the Level 6
felony possession charge; (2) complete all requirements of the drug court
program; (3) appear in court when instructed, obey all laws and maintain good
behavior; and (4) reside in a transitional-living facility. In exchange, the State
agreed that upon Edwards’s successful completion of the drug court program, it
would move to have Edwards’s guilty plea vacated and to dismiss the Level 6
felony possession charge.1
1
The agreement also covered a misdemeanor charge stemming from Cause Number 02D05-1604-CM-1435.
Edwards does not include any argument relating to this other charge in the instant appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-31 | May 24, 2017 Page 3 of 6
[5] Edwards began his participation in the drug court program on August 1, 2016,
and was released from custody on August 3, 2016. On August 8, 2016,
Edwards failed to appear for a drug court status hearing. A warrant was
thereafter issued for his arrest. Edwards was arrested on this warrant on
September 8, 2016, and was released from incarceration on September 30,
2016. On October 4, 2016, Edwards failed to return to the Potter’s House, the
transitional-living facility at which he was to reside. On October 11, 2016,
Edwards again failed to appear for a scheduled court proceeding. In addition,
on October 12, 2016, while still enrolled in the drug court program, Edwards
was arrested for resisting law enforcement, unlawful possession of a syringe,
and visiting a common nuisance.
[6] As a result of Edwards’s violations of the drug court participation agreement,
on October 17, 2016, the State filed a verified petition to terminate Edwards’s
participation in the drug court program. The trial court conducted a hearing on
the State’s petition on October 18, 2016. During this hearing, Edwards
admitted to the allegations contained in the State’s petition. The trial court
granted the State’s petition and set the matter for sentencing.
[7] The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on December 2, 2016. At the
conclusion of this hearing, the trial court sentenced Edwards to a two-year
term, all of which was to be executed in the Department of Correction. This
appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-31 | May 24, 2017 Page 4 of 6
[8] Edwards contends that his two-year executed sentence is inappropriate.
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “The 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate
less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or
hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the
offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about
the defendant’s character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans.
denied). The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is
inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[9] The facts relating to the instant matter demonstrate that on July 10, 2016,
Edwards was found to be in possession of a syringe in violation of Indiana law.
As the State concedes, the record reveals “nothing particularly aggravating
about the nature of [Edwards’s] offense.” Appellee’s Br. p. 9.
[10] Edwards’s character, on the other hand, aptly demonstrates the appropriateness
of his two-year executed sentence. Edwards was thirty years old at the time of
sentencing. His criminal history includes both prior felony and misdemeanor
convictions as well as juvenile adjudications. Edwards’s felony convictions
include convictions for two counts of strangulation, resisting law enforcement,
and possession of cocaine or narcotic drug. His misdemeanor convictions
include convictions for possession of marijuana, battery, four counts of resisting
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-31 | May 24, 2017 Page 5 of 6
law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and two counts of visiting a common
nuisance.2 Edwards’s juvenile adjudications include adjudications for battery,
resisting law enforcement, disorderly conduct, and possession or use of a legend
drug. Edwards’s criminal history also includes numerous probation violations.
[11] Edwards’s criminal history indicates that he has not only a disdain for the
criminal justice system, but also a disdain for the rights and safety of others.
Moreover, the Allen County Probation Department indicated that a risk
assessment of Edwards placed him in a “VERY HIGH” risk category to
reoffend. Appellant’s App. Vol. II – Confidential, p. 48. Edwards has failed to
prove that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and
his character.3
[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.
2
The second of Edwards’s visiting a common nuisance convictions was the charge connected to Cause
Number 02D05-1604-CM-1435.
3
We note that while Edwards mentions the aggravating and mitigating factors that the trial court considered
in sentencing him, Edwards makes no argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him.
Therefore, to the extent that Edwards intended to argue that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
him, such claim is waived. See Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 132 n.7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (providing that
defendant’s failure to develop an argument results in waiver).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-31 | May 24, 2017 Page 6 of 6
Cedric L. Edwards v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion