Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-31 | May 24, 2017 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Donald J. Frew

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Cedric L. Edwards,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 24, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A04-1701-CR-31

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull,

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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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).