Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1409-CR-428 | April 8, 2015 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Cara Schaefer Wieneke 

Wieneke Law Office, LLC 

Plainfield, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Justin F. Roebel 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bruce Schaadt, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

April 8, 2015 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

33A05-1409-CR-428 

Appeal from the Henry County Court 

2 

The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, 

Judge 

Cause No. 33C02-1307-FA-39 

Friedlander, Judge. 

[1] Bruce Schaadt was convicted of two counts of class A felony Dealing in 

Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a Family Housing Complex1

 and one 

 

1

 The version of the dealing statute in effect at the time the offense was committed classified the charged 

offense as a class A felony. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-48-4-1.1 (West, Westlaw 2013). This statute has been 

substantially revised and in its current form reclassifies this offense as a Level 5 felony. See I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1 

(West, Westlaw current with all legislation of the 2015 1st Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly 

effective through February 23, 2015). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1409-CR-428 | April 8, 2015 Page 2 of 7

count of class D felony Maintaining a Common Nuisance.2

 The trial court 

sentenced him to an aggregate term of forty years in prison. Schaadt challenges 

his sentence on appeal, raising the following restated issues: 

1. Does the savings clause of the 2014 criminal code revision 

violate the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 

Indiana Constitution? 

2. Is Schaadt’s forty-year sentence inappropriate in light of his 

character and the nature of his offenses? 

We affirm. 

[2] On April 16 and 17, 2013, a confidential informant (CI) working with the 

Henry County Drug Task Force bought methamphetamine in two separate 

controlled buys from Schaadt and his girlfriend, Jessica Rinehart. The buys 

took place at the New Castle Inn, in a room where Schaadt and Rinehart were 

staying. The female CI contacted Rinehart to arrange the buys before arriving 

at the motel. Although the CI handed the buy money to Rinehart each time, 

Rinehart immediately turned it over to Schaadt. Moreover, in each exchange, 

Schaadt retrieved methamphetamine from a bag and gave it to Rinehart, who 

then handed it to the CI. The first buy involved .38 grams of 

methamphetamine and the second was .13 grams. 

[3] On July 26, 2013, the State charged Schaadt with two counts of dealing in 

methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a family housing complex, a class A 

felony, and one count of maintaining a common nuisance, a class D felony. 

 

2

 I.C. § 35-48-4-13(b) (2013). Under the revised statute, the offense has been reclassified as a Level 6 felony. 

I.C. § 35-48-4-13(b) (West, Westlaw current with all legislation of the 2015 1st Regular Session of the 119th

General Assembly effective through February 23, 2015). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1409-CR-428 | April 8, 2015 Page 3 of 7

Following a jury trial, which concluded on July 31, 2014, Schaadt was found 

guilty as charged. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to concurrent 

terms of forty years for each class A felony and three years for the class D 

felony. Schaadt appeals his sentence. 

1. 

[4] Schaadt initially mounts a constitutional challenge, claiming the savings clause 

of the 2014 criminal code revision violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities 

Clause, article 1, section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.3

 Specifically, he 

observes that under the revised criminal code, his dealing conviction would 

constitute a Level 5 offense subject to a maximum prison term of six years. See

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-6(b) (West, Westlaw current with all legislation of the 

2015 1st Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly effective through 

February 23, 2015). He argues that the ameliorative sentencing provisions 

should apply retroactively to defendants who had not yet been convicted and 

sentenced when the revision took effect on July 1, 2014. 

[5] After the commission of Schaadt’s offense but while his case was still pending, 

an overhaul of our criminal code went into effect pursuant to P.L. 158-2013 and 

P.L. 168-2014. This revision resulted in, among other things, a drastic 

reduction of the sentencing ranges for most drug offenses. The General 

Assembly, however, made it abundantly clear that the new criminal code was 

 

3

 The State argues that Schaadt waived this issue by failing to raise the constitutional challenge below. We 

choose to exercise our discretion and address the constitutional claim on the merits. See Plank v. Cmty. Hosp. 

of Ind., Inc., 4 N.E.3d 797 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1409-CR-428 | April 8, 2015 Page 4 of 7

not intended to have any effect on criminal proceedings for offenses committed 

prior its enactment. Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. 

denied. In this regard, the General Assembly enacted the following specific 

savings clause: 

(a) A SECTION of P.L.158-2013 or P.L.168-2014 does not affect: 

(1) penalties incurred; 

(2) crimes committed; or 

(3) proceedings begun; 

before the effective date of that SECTION of P.L.158-2013 or P.L.168-

2014. Those penalties, crimes, and proceedings continue and shall be 

imposed and enforced under prior law as if that SECTION of P.L.158-

2013 or P.L.168-2014 had not been enacted. 

(b) The general assembly does not intend the doctrine of amelioration 

(see Vicory v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. 1980)) to apply to any 

SECTION of P.L.158-2013 or P.L.168-2014. 

[6] Ind. Code Ann. § 1-1-5.5-21 (West, Westlaw current with all legislation of the 

2015 1st Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly effective through 

February 23, 2015). 

[7] Schaadt argues that the savings clause unconstitutionally and arbitrarily creates 

“two classes of drug offenders: those who committed their offenses before the 

change in law and those who committed their offenses after the change in law.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 4. We find nothing arbitrary about the savings clause. 

[8] The Indiana Constitution provides that the “General Assembly shall not grant 

to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the 

same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Ind. Const. art. 1, § 23. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1409-CR-428 | April 8, 2015 Page 5 of 7

Our courts have consistently held that “a change in penal statutes which applies 

only to those who commit their crimes after its effective date does not violate 

one’s equal protection rights.” Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ind. 

1999). See also State v. Alcorn, 638 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. 1994); Vicory v. State, 400 

N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. 1980); Rivera v. State, 385 N.E.2d 455 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). 

This is so because the “the time of a crime is selected as an act of free will by 

the offender.” Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d at 513 (quoting State v. Alcorn, 638 

N.E.2d at 1245). The offender, not the State, chooses which statute applies. 

Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506. Schaadt has no viable equal privileges and 

immunities claim. See id. 

2. 

[9] As an alternative argument, Schaadt contends that his sentence is inappropriate 

in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. He also asks that we take 

into account the considerable disparity between his sentence and what he would 

have received under the revised code. 

[10] Article 7, section 4 of the Indiana Constitution grants our Supreme Court the 

power to review and revise criminal sentences. See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 

1274 (Ind. 2014). Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7, the Supreme Court 

authorized this court to perform the same task. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 

1219 (Ind. 2008). Per App. R. 7(B), we “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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1409-CR-428 | April 8, 2015 Page 6 of 7

character of the offender.” Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 (Ind. 2014) 

(quoting App. R. 7(B)). “Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is very 

deferential to the trial court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). 

Schaadt bears the burden on appeal of persuading us that his sentence is 

inappropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864. 

[11] The statutory sentencing range for a class A felony is twenty to fifty years, with 

an advisory sentence of thirty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-4(a) (West, Westlaw current 

with all legislation of the 2015 1st Regular Session of the 119th General 

Assembly effective through February 23, 2015). Thus, Schaadt received an 

aggravated sentence midway between the advisory and maximum sentence for 

a class A felony. 

[12] As recognized above, the General Assembly intended the new criminal code to 

have no effect on criminal proceedings for offenses, like Schaadt’s, committed 

prior to July 1, 2014. “We think this is true with regard to considering the 

appropriateness of a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B); we are to proceed as if 

the new criminal code had not been enacted.” Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d at 

340. Accordingly, we decline Schaadt’s invitation to take into consideration the 

lesser penalties of the new criminal code in addressing the appropriateness of 

his sentence. Instead, we consider what App. R. 7(B) requires us to consider: 

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. 

[13] With respect to the nature of the offense, Schaadt claims that his involvement in 

the drug transactions was minor and that the total amount of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1409-CR-428 | April 8, 2015 Page 7 of 7

methamphetamine dealt was a small amount. The record does not support 

Schaadt’s claim regarding his role in the transactions. In both instances, he was 

the one supplying the drugs and ultimately obtaining the money. Regardless, 

we acknowledge that the nature of Schaadt’s offenses were not particularly 

aggravating and alone might not support the sentence imposed. 

[14] Schaadt’s character, however, is significantly aggravating. His prior criminal 

history is extensive with ten misdemeanor convictions (including, OWI, theft, 

fraud, check deception, and driving offenses), four felony convictions (theft, 

drug possession, and driving offenses), and a number of probation violations 

over the last twenty plus years. His convictions span two states and despite 

serving lengthy sentences, Schaadt has remained generally undeterred in his 

criminal pursuits when not in prison. 

[15] Upon considering the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, we 

are unable to say that Schaadt’s aggregate sentence of forty years for two class 

A felonies and one class D felony is inappropriate. 

[16] Judgment affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.