Michael Morelock, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Michael Morelock, pro se, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion regarding credit time. We dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 1, 2022, the State charged Morelock under cause number 48C06-2211-F3-3129 (“Cause No. 3129”) with multiple counts. In May 2024, Morelock pled guilty as charged.

[3] On June 14, 2024, the court sentenced Morelock to an aggregate sentence of fourteen years with eight years suspended to probation. The court's order states: “No credit time applied, as it was applied to 48C06-1703-F6-692. Defendant acknowledges accuracy of credit time.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 18. The court ordered that the sentence be served consecutive to sentences in cause numbers 48C06-1703-F6-692 and 48C06-2210-CM-2884.

[4] On August 20, 2024, Morelock filed a Pro Se Petition for Jail Time Credit under Cause No. 3129.¹ On August 21, 2024, the court denied the motion. On April 10, 2025, Morelock filed a Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence citing Ind. Code § 35-38-1-15, which governs motions to correct erroneous sentences, and requested that accrued time of 590 days be applied to Cause No. 3129. On April 11, 2025, the court denied the motion. On May 8, 2025, Morelock filed a Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration and again cited Ind. Code § 35-38-1-15. On May 9, 2025, the court denied the motion.

[5] On May 30, 2025, Morelock filed a “Motion for Relief from Judgment” under Cause No. 3129 citing Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(8). Id. at 31 (capitalization omitted). Morelock requested “relief from the Court's previous judgment entered into on April 10, 2025 ․ denying relief and again subsequently denying relief under Ind. Trial Rule 53.4 on the 8th of May, 2025.” Id. He asserted that he was entitled to accrued time of 590 days. On June 2, 2025, the court denied Morelock's motion. On June 13, 2025, Morelock filed a notice of appeal and identified the June 2, 2025 order as the appealed judgment.

Discussion

[6] Morelock argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding him his accrued credit time of 590 days. Although his May 30, 2025 motion was titled a “Motion for Relief from Judgment,” Morelock appeared to focus on his assertion regarding credit time of 590 days and referenced the court's denial of his April 10, 2025 Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence and the denial of his May 8, 2025 motion for reconsideration. Id. (capitalization omitted). “We have often indicated a preference of substance over form.” In re Sale of Real Prop. with Delinq. Taxes or Special Assessments, 822 N.E.2d 1063, 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh'g denied, trans. denied. We treat Morelock's May 30, 2025 motion as a motion to correct erroneous sentence as well as a repetitive motion.² See Murfitt v. State, 812 N.E.2d 809, 809-810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (treating defendant's “motion for pretrial credit time served” as a motion to correct erroneous sentence); see also Kindred v. State, 771 N.E.2d 760, 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that a “motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal,” “[n]either can the motion be employed to revive an expired attempt to appeal,” and Trial Rule 60(B) “is not designed to circumvent the appellate process, but to afford relief upon a showing of exceptional circumstances”), disapproved on other grounds by Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004).

[7] Ind. Trial Rule 53.4 governs repetitive motions and provides, in relevant part, that repetitive motions “shall not delay the trial or any proceedings in the case, or extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules.” We have held that, under Trial Rule 53.4, a repetitive motion does not extend the time to file a notice of appeal. See Walters v. Austin, 968 N.E.2d 233, 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (“We conclude that the amended motion to correct error was a repetitive motion and, therefore, the filing of the amended motion did not change the date for filing the notice of appeal.”), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

[8] Given that Morelock's May 30, 2025 motion was a repetitive motion, its filing did not extend the date for filing the notice of appeal. Morelock's notice of appeal was not filed until June 13, 2025, well beyond thirty days after either the trial court's August 21, 2024 denial of his Petition for Jail Time Credit or the court's April 11, 2025 denial of his first Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence. Accordingly, Morelock's appeal was untimely. See Ind. Appellate Rule 9 (“A party initiates an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk ․ within thirty (30) days after the entry of a Final Judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary․ Unless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as provided by [Post-Conviction Rule 2].”).³ If a right to appeal has been forfeited, “the question is whether there are extraordinarily compelling reasons why this forfeited right should be restored.” In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014). Morelock does not contend and we do not find that extraordinarily compelling reasons for non-forfeiture exist.

[9] For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

[10] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While not contained in his appendix on appeal, the August 20, 2024 petition is available on Indiana's Odyssey Case Management System. In the petition, Morelock asked for credit for 590 days of jail time.

2.   In the argument section of his appellate brief, Morelock does not cite Ind. Trial Rule 60, which governs motions for relief from judgment. Rather, he focuses his argument on credit time.

3.   The Indiana Supreme Court has held that Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 2 “applies to direct appeals of convictions or sentences” and “does not apply to appeals of collateral or post-judgment rulings.” Hill v. State, 960 N.E.2d 141, 148 (Ind. 2012), reh'g denied. See also Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647, 649 (Ind. 2002) (holding that Post-Conviction Rule 2(1) does not permit belated appeals of motions to correct erroneous sentences), abrogated in part on other grounds by In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014).

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.