SADLER II v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Joseph Sadler, II, (“Sadler”) appeals the aggregate thirty-one-year sentence imposed after the trial court convicted him of Level 1 felony child molesting ¹ and two counts of Level 4 child molesting.² He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Sadler.

Facts

[3] In February 2020, A.R. (“A.R.”), who had just turned eleven years old, was living with her mother (“A.R.’s mother”), her stepfather, and her brother. The family shared a house with thirty-one-year-old Sadler, his wife, and his infant daughter. That same month, A.R. contracted the flu and stayed home from school for a week. Sadler watched A.R. and his infant daughter that week while the other adults in the home worked. During that week, Sadler molested A.R. multiple times. Specifically, Sadler massaged A.R.’s chest area under her clothes, touched her vaginal area under her underwear, and inserted his finger into her vagina. A.R. did not tell anyone what Sadler had done. In May 2020, Sadler and his family moved out of the house.

[4] Over the ensuing months, A.R. developed mental health issues and began cutting her arms. In December 2021, a school counselor noticed the cuts on A.R.’s arm and contacted A.R.’s mother. When A.R.’s mother picked A.R. up from school, A.R. told her mother that Sadler had molested her. A.R.’s mother contacted DCS and law enforcement. After a law enforcement officer had interviewed A.R., in February 2022, the State charged Sadler with one count of Level 1 felony child molesting and three counts of Level 4 felony child molesting.³

[5] Following a May 2024 bench trial, the trial court convicted Sadler of Level 1 felony child molesting and two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting. At the June 2024 sentencing hearing, the trial court stated as follows:

All right. In aggravation I'll find that the victim of the offense was less than 12 years of age ․; however, that is part of the offense, because it is a child molest, I will not give it great weight.

․ I also find that [Sadler] was in the position of caring – care, custody, or control of the victim of the offense. In mitigation I will find that he has no history of delinquent or criminal activity, and has led a law-abiding life, [t]hat he is likely to respond affirmatively to probation or short-term imprisonment, and that imprisonment will make an und[ue] hardship to the person or the dependents of the person.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 147).

[6] Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Sadler to twenty-eight (28) years for the Level 1 felony conviction and three (3) years for each of the two Level 4 felony convictions. In addition, the trial court ordered the twenty-eight-year sentence for the Level 1 felony conviction to run consecutively to the three-year sentence for one of the Level 4 felony convictions. The trial court further ordered the three-year sentence for the other Level 4 felony conviction to run concurrently with the sentence for the other two convictions. Lastly, the trial court ordered Sadler to serve the aggregate thirty-one-year sentence in the Department of Correction.

[7] Sadler now appeals his sentence.

Decision

[8] Sadler argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). So long as the sentence is within the statutory range, it is subject to review only for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 490. An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id.

[9] Here, Sadler specifically contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him because the trial court's “sentencing statement is insufficient[.]” (Sadler's Br. 10). A sentencing statement serves two primary purposes: (1) it guards against arbitrary and capricious sentencing; and (2) it provides an adequate basis for appellate review. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 489. In order for this Court to carry out its function of reviewing the trial court's exercise of its sentencing discretion, we must understand the trial court's reasons for imposing the sentence. Id. at 490. “This necessarily requires a statement of facts, in some detail, which are peculiar to the particular defendant and the crime, as opposed to general impressions or conclusions.” Id. In other words, a trial court's sentencing statement “must include a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial court's reasons for imposing a particular sentence.” Id.

[10] Here, the trial court entered a sentencing statement indicating that it had considered as aggravating factors that A.R. had been less than twelve years old at the time of the offenses and that Sadler had been in a position of caring for A.R. when he had molested her. In addition, the trial court considered as mitigating factors that Sadler had no criminal history, he was likely to respond affirmatively to short-term imprisonment, and his incarceration would cause his dependents to suffer undue hardship. We conclude that this sentencing statement is a sufficient articulation of the trial court's reasons for imposing a thirty-one-year aggregate sentence after convicting Sadler of Level 1 felony child molesting and two counts of Level 4 child molesting. Further concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Sadler, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.⁴

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-4-3(b).

3.   In April 2022, the trial court granted the State's motion to amend the charging information as to dates.

4.   Sadler also argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to explain why it ordered the sentence for his Level 1 felony child molesting conviction to run consecutively to the sentence for one of the Level 4 felony child molesting convictions. “A trial court is required to state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences or enhanced terms, and a single aggravating circumstance may be sufficient to support the imposition of consecutive sentences.” Gober v. State, 163 N.E.3d 347, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. We conclude that the trial court's sentencing statement set forth above sufficiently articulated the trial court's reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. We further note that, as discussed above, the trial court identified two aggravating factors, which Sadler does not challenge. Because a single aggravating factor is sufficient to impose consecutive sentences, the trial court was within its discretion to order that Sadler's sentences be served consecutively.

Pyle, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.