Cecil Sadler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CECIL SADLER Carlisle, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana J.T. WHITEHEAD Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CECIL SADLER, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 82A01-0706-PC-256 APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable David D. Kiely, Magistrate Cause No. 82C01-9402-CF-43 November 14, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAKER, Chief Judge Appellant-petitioner Cecil Sadler appeals the post-conviction court s denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Sadler was convicted of murder and class A felony attempted robbery on February 1, 1995, and was ultimately sentenced to fifty years for murder and twenty-five years for attempted robbery. Sadler directly appealed and a panel of this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions that the attempted robbery conviction be reduced to a class C felony. Sadler v. State, No. 82A01-9506-CR-166 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 1996). On April 16, 1996, Sadler was resentenced to fifty years for murder and eight years for class C felony attempted robbery, to be served consecutively. Sadler has unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief numerous times, and on February 6, 2007, Sadler filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, alleging that the trial court did not have the statutory authority to impose consecutive sentences. The post-conviction court denied Sadler s motion on February 8, 2007, and Sadler now appeals. Sadler contends that the trial court lacked the statutory authority to impose consecutive sentences. Sadler did not raise this argument in his direct appeal; consequently, he has waived it. Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999, 1003 (Ind. 1999) (holding that petitioner waives claims known on direct appeal but not raised at that time). Waiver notwithstanding, we note that although Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 applies a cap on consecutive sentences, it exempts crimes of violence from that cap. Inasmuch as Sadler was convicted of murder, a crime of violence, the trial court was not required to heed the limitation on consecutive sentences provided by the statute. Sadler argues that because his other conviction was for attempted robbery, which is not a crime of violence, the limitation applies. 2 Our Supreme Court, however, has explicitly held that limitations on consecutive sentencing do not apply between crimes of violence and those that are not crimes of violence. Williams v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1209, 1214 (Ind. 2001). Thus, the post-conviction court properly denied Sadler s motion to correct erroneous sentence. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. MAY, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
