Preview:

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 S. EDWARDS Columbus, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana MICHAEL GENE WORDEN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SAUL R. CRUZ, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Dec 17 2010, 10:28 am

CLERK

No. 03A01-1004-CR-175

APPEAL FROM THE BARTHOLOMEW CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Stephen R. Heimann, Judge Cause No. 03C01-0910-FA-2423

December 17, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Saul R. Cruz appeals his twenty-five year sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine.1 Cruz claims the court should have suspended a portion of his sentence. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Cruz twice sold cocaine to an undercover police officer. The State charged him with two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Cruz pled guilty to one count in exchange for dismissal of the second count. The court entered the conviction and imposed a twentyfive year sentence with no time suspended. DISCUSSION AND DECISION We begin by noting it has been particularly difficult to discern the legal basis for Cruzs argument. In his Statement of the Issues and Summary of the Argument, Cruz claims the trial court "abused its discretion" by ordering a twenty-five year sentence without any time suspended. (Br. of Appellant at 1, 5.) But his Standard of Review addresses only our authority to review sentences for inappropriateness when there has been no abuse of discretion. (Id. at 6.) Then, in his Argument, Cruz states: "Given the nature and

circumstances of the crime and character of the offender the trial court abused its discretion without fully considering sentencing alternatives as opposed to a fully executed twenty five (25) year sentence to the Indiana Department of Correction." (Id. at 7.) Whether a trial court ,,abused its discretion or imposed ,,an inappropriate sentence based on the nature of the offense and character of the offender are separate grounds for challenging a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on

1

Ind. Code

Download 12171003msm.pdf

Indiana Law