Patrick Morrow, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After pleading guilty to Level 5 felony domestic battery, Patrick Morrow was sentenced to a term of six years to be served on community corrections with one year suspended to probation. Morrow contends that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] According to the affidavit of probable cause, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on May 24, 2024, officers were dispatched to a home in Lafayette because of a domestic situation between Morrow and his then-girlfriend, Nekia Thomas. Responding officers observed that Morrow appeared to be intoxicated “based on his speech and belligerent behaviors.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 137.

[3] Thomas informed the responding officers that after she and Morrow had begun to argue about their daughter, Morrow had become “aggressive[ ]” and had “walked up to [her] and forcefully grabbed [her] by the neck.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 137. Responding officers observed that Thomas “had a mark on her neck with fresh blood[ ]” and “two scratches and general redness in other areas of Thomas's neck.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 137. A witness corroborated Thomas's account, indicating that she had observed Morrow “grab Thomas by the neck and slam [her] into the door.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 137. Both Thomas and the witness indicated that multiple children had been present at the time of the domestic incident. Records also revealed that Morrow had previously been convicted of Level 6 felony domestic battery and Level 6 felony strangulation for acts involving Thomas.

[4] On May 24, 2024, the State charged Morrow with Level 5 felony domestic battery, Level 5 felony strangulation, Level 6 felony domestic battery, Level 6 felony strangulation, and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and alleged that Morrow was a habitual offender. Morrow pled guilty to Level 5 felony domestic battery on August 7, 2025. In exchange for Morrow's guilty plea, the parties agreed that “[a]ny remaining counts herein and in [another pending criminal case in Tippecanoe County] shall be dismissed[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 134. Also, “any further executed portion of [Morrow's] sentence shall be served on Tippecanoe County Community Corrections [(“TCCC”)] at a level to be determined by [TCCC].” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 134. The trial court accepted Morrow's guilty plea and, on September 3, 2025, sentenced Morrow to six years, with credit for time served and the balance “served through [TCCC] as a direct placement at a level to be determined. And then there is one year suspended to supervised [p]robation.” Tr. Vol. II p. 127.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he Court 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 character of the offender.” In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotation omitted), trans. denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[6] Morrow pled guilty to Level 5 felony domestic battery. “A person who commits a Level 5 felony ․ shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). After accepting Morrow's guilty plea, the trial court imposed a six-year sentence to be served in TCCC with one year suspended to probation. Morrow contends that his six-year sentence is inappropriate. We disagree.

[7] “The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances surrounding the offense and the defendant's participation therein.” Woodcock v. State, 163 N.E.3d 863, 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. In this case, Morrow, while intoxicated, approached Thomas and grabbed her by the neck. As a result of Morrow's actions, Thomas suffered “scratches and general redness” on her neck and “a mark on her neck with fresh blood.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 137. A witness observed Morrow “grab Thomas by the neck and slam [her] into the door.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 137. Multiple children were present at the time of the domestic incident. Morrow's actions were serious as they caused Thomas to suffer an injury to her neck area, which drew blood. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it was “struck” by Morrow's attempt to minimize his responsibility and to place blame for the incident on Thomas. Tr. Vol. II p. 124. The nature of Morrow's offense does not warrant a sentence reduction.

[8] The “character of the offender” portion of the Rule 7(B) standard refers to general sentencing considerations and relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, Williams v. State, 782 N.E.2d 1039, 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied, and permits a broader consideration of the defendant's character[.] Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “A defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.

Woodcock, 163 N.E.3d at 878. “In examining a defendant's character, one relevant factor is his or her criminal history, the significance of which ‘varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.’ ” Id. (quoting Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). “Additionally, although a record of arrests by itself is not evidence of a defendant's criminal history, it is appropriate to consider such a record as a poor reflection on the defendant's character, because it may reveal that he or she has not been deterred even after having been subjected to the police authority of the State.” Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874.

[9] Morrow points to his consistent efforts to maintain employment and to support his family as positive character traits. Morrow, however, has amassed a significant criminal history that includes ten prior felony convictions, numerous prior misdemeanor convictions, and a prior federal conviction. He has also violated probationary terms. Importantly, two of Morrow's prior felony convictions were for domestic battery and strangulation for acts involving Thomas. Morrow's criminal history also included numerous arrests and criminal charges, which did not result in conviction. Morrow's significant criminal history reflects poorly on his character. Morrow's continued criminal behavior indicates that he has not been deterred by his prior contacts with the criminal justice system. See id. Morrow has also been determined to be a “HIGH” risk to reoffend. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 129. Finally, although he pled guilty, Morrow's decision to plead guilty appears to be more of a pragmatic decision than an acceptance of guilt, as Morrow has continued to place blame on Thomas. Morrow has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.¹ Sanchez, 891 N.E.2d at 176.

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that in discussing his character, Morrow refers to the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the trial court as well as additional allegedly mitigating factors. However, Morrow has waived any argument that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find his proffered mitigating factors to be significant because he has failed to develop that argument or support it with cogent argument and citations to relevant authority. See Isom v. State, 170 N.E.3d 623, 648 (Ind. 2021) (providing that the appellant waived his argument by not developing it).

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.