Ross Alan Morelock, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After the vehicle in which he was riding was pulled over by a police officer, Ross Morelock fired multiple shots at the officer. Later, a jury found him guilty of attempted murder, possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug, and possessing a firearm. Morelock also admitted he was a habitual offender and a serious violent felon and that he had used a firearm in the attempted murder. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of seventy-five years in the Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal, Morelock argues (1) he didn't knowingly and intelligently admit to the habitual offender and firearm sentence enhancements and (2) his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 1, 2024, Pendleton Police Officer Jerry Branson investigated a single-car accident. The occupants of the vehicle—which was registered to Amelia Peters—had abandoned the scene, and the vehicle contained pill bottles prescribed to Morelock, who was Peters’ boyfriend. The officer also learned Peters owned a different vehicle, a black Mercedes-Benz.

[3] Later, cell phone evidence would further support that Morelock was involved in the May 1 wreck. That same day, Morelock sent a message to a woman other than Peters saying he'd totaled his car and was on the run and hiding.¹ In another message to this woman sent May 7, Morelock acknowledged the police were looking for him “because [he] was involved in a wreck and left the Sha Seen [sic] of an accident[.]” Exhibits Vol. 2 at 31.

[4] On the afternoon of May 7, Officer Branson saw Peters’ Mercedes-Benz and initiated a traffic stop in a gas station parking lot. The officer approached the stop with caution because he believed the occupants might be armed. Because the windows were tinted, the officer knocked on the rear driver's side door and asked the occupants to roll down their windows. From the driver's seat, Peters indicated the windows didn't work. Officer Branson then opened the rear driver's side door and saw Morelock in the passenger seat with his hands down by the floorboard.

[5] At that point, Officer Branson instructed Morelock, who was wearing a black ski mask, to keep his hands visible. He then asked Peters to open her door. When she did, the officer asked for their names: Morelock gave a false name, but Peters gave her real name. The officer recognized Peters from his investigation of the May 1 accident, so he made her exit the vehicle and placed her in handcuffs. He called for backup while he continued to instruct Morelock to keep his hands visible. Because the situation was unusual and the officer felt it was becoming increasingly dangerous, he decided to move himself and Peters away from the open door.

[6] As the officer passed the front of the vehicle, he saw Morelock make a sudden move toward the floorboard. The officer yelled at Morelock, pulled his own firearm, and then saw Morelock pointing a handgun at him. Officer Branson pulled the trigger, but his gun malfunctioned and didn't fire. The officer pushed Peters to the ground and attempted to clear his weapon while he came under fire at close range. After he cleared his weapon, the officer exchanged multiple shots with Morelock. The officer heard bullets whizzing around his head, and one round penetrated his uniform and grazed his shoulder. His hand was cut and fragments of glass entered his eye from the car windows that were shot out. There were bullet holes in the gas station wall behind where Officer Branson was standing. As Officer Branson repositioned himself, he saw Morelock had moved from the passenger seat to the pavement and observed him put his gun up to his chin and fire. Although Morelock shot out one of his eyes and was covered in blood, he survived.

[7] When officers searched the Mercedes-Benz, they discovered multiple boxes of ammunition and two extended magazines each containing dozens of rounds. Police also located a backpack in the vehicle. Morelock later admitted that an extended magazine found in the backpack was his. The backpack also contained drug paraphernalia and a gray powder substance that was later determined to be a 12.69-gram mixture of numerous drugs including cocaine, fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine.

[8] On June 20, 2024, the State charged Morelock with Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 2 felony possession of a destructive device or explosive, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF), and sentence enhancements for using a firearm in the commission of the offense and being a habitual offender. It later amended the charging information to add a charge for Level 3 felony possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug, dismiss the destructive device count, and change the predicate offenses for the habitual offender allegation.

[9] The trial court held a multi-day bifurcated jury trial in March 2025. Morelock testified in his own defense and said he suffered severe injuries in a car accident in 2022. Since then, he claimed he struggled with depression and suicidal ideation. Regarding the shooting, Morelock testified he was “try[ing] to get ․ the officer to ․ pull his weapon ․ and shoot [him]” because he didn't want to go back to jail. Transcript Vol. 2 at 220. He said he was not trying to kill Officer Branson and had only fired his weapon to get the officer to shoot him. Morelock acknowledged that about a year before the shooting, he'd been released from custody on other charges to address his medical issues, but he failed to attend medical appointments or show up for court proceedings which resulted in warrants being issued for his arrest.

[10] After the close of evidence but before the verdict, the trial court advised Morelock of various rights he had with respect to the SVF firearm possession charge and the sentence enhancements. Morelock then admitted he was an SVF, habitual offender, and that he had used a firearm in the commission of the attempted murder. As such, he acknowledged he waived his right to have the State prove the enhancements in the event he was found guilty of the underlying offenses. Subsequently, the jury found him guilty of attempted murder, possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug, and knowingly or intentionally possessing a firearm.

[11] Morelock's presentence investigation report (PSI) revealed he had an extensive criminal history dating back to his youth. As a juvenile, Morelock had been adjudicated delinquent for burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, and carrying a handgun without a license. He underwent substance abuse programming as a juvenile, violated his probation at least five times, and spent time in secure detention and the DOC. As an adult, Morelock had been convicted of eleven misdemeanors and five felonies. His misdemeanor convictions included domestic battery, resisting law enforcement, and multiple instances of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. His felonies were for criminal confinement, operating while intoxicated, operating as a habitual traffic violator, obstruction of justice, and possession of methamphetamine. Morelock was thirty-nine years old when he committed the instant offenses, and he had three pending felony cases, two of which were for dealing in methamphetamine.

[12] The PSI also showed Morelock had previously received lenient sentences on multiple occasions as well as opportunities for substance abuse treatment, including Purposeful Incarceration. As an adult, he violated the terms of his suspended sentences several times and spent multiple stints in the DOC. Morelock reported he started using marijuana and alcohol in his early teens and methamphetamine and heroin a few years before committing these offenses. He also admitted he had used methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana on the day he committed the instant acts.

[13] At sentencing, the State admitted a victim impact statement from Officer Branson. In his statement, the officer shared that being the victim of a violent crime caused “anxiety and stress that ha[d] deeply impacted [his] life” and “created tension at home and [in his] employment.” Ex. Vol. 2 at 37. He experienced nightmares, sleeplessness, anger, familial conflict, and feelings of isolation. The officer also described his struggles as he sought support from his department, particularly in the areas of securing necessary counseling and switching the manufacturer of his firearm to avoid future issues with his weapon jamming. His stress and anxiety were further exacerbated by his perception that the department didn't take his concerns seriously.

[14] Morelock gave a statement in which he apologized to Officer Branson. He said he did not intend to shoot the officer and instead was attempting to commit suicide-by-cop. Even so, he acknowledged his actions weren't “fair to [the officer].” Tr. Vol. 3 at 146. Morelock further expressed his desire “to reform and rehabilitate” himself while in prison. Id. In argument, his attorney cited his physical injuries and mental health struggles. Ultimately, the court found Morelock's criminal history and record of violating suspended sentences were aggravating factors. The court assigned minimal mitigating weight to the fact that Morelock accepted responsibility for the sentence enhancements, noting the State would've had little trouble proving them. The court sentenced Morelock to forty years for attempted murder, enhanced by seventeen and a half years on each sentence enhancement, for a total of seventy-five years executed in the DOC. The court also sentenced Morelock to twelve years on the drug possession conviction and nine years on the possession of a firearm by an SVF conviction, but it ran those sentences concurrently with his sentence for attempted murder. Morelock now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

1. Enhancements

[15] Morelock argues his “guilty plea to the habitual offender enhancement and the firearm enhancement were not made voluntarily and intelligently because the trial court failed to advise him of all his constitutional rights.” Appellant's Brief at 13. The State responds that Morelock cannot raise this issue on direct appeal. We agree with the State.

[16] When a defendant admits to being a habitual offender or using a firearm to commit an offense, he effectively pleads guilty to those enhancements. See Stringer v. State, 899 N.E.2d 748, 749-50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (habitual offender enhancement); Lumbley v. State, 74 N.E.3d 234, 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (firearm enhancement), trans. denied. Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must inform a defendant, among other things, “that he is waiving his right to a public and speedy trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to have witnesses testify in the defendant's favor[,] and to require the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stringer, 899 N.E.2d at 750 (citing Ind. Code § 35-35-1-2(a)(2)). Trial courts must strictly comply with these requirements “in order to determine that any waiver of fundamental constitutional rights is knowingly and intelligently given.” Id. (quoting Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395 (Ind. 1996)).

[17] However, after a defendant pleads guilty, “he cannot challenge the propriety of his convictions on direct appeal.” Jones v. State, 221 N.E.3d 686, 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). “Rather, the appropriate forum is post-conviction relief.” Id.; see also Tumulty, 666 N.E.2d at 396 (“[P]ost-conviction relief is exactly the vehicle for pursuing” a challenge to a guilty plea.); Hayes v. State, 906 N.E.2d 819, 821 n.1 (Ind. 2009) (“The proper avenue for challenging one's conviction pursuant to a guilty plea is through filing a petition for post-conviction relief and presenting evidence at a post-conviction proceeding.”). This rule applies with equal force to direct appeals premised on the argument Morelock raises here: that his plea was not made knowingly and intelligently because the trial court failed to advise him of all of his constitutional rights. See Jones, 221 N.E.3d at 691 (finding a defendant's argument that he was not informed of all of his constitutional rights was an improper “challenge to the propriety of his convictions on direct appeal”); Stringer, 899 N.E.2d at 750 (“Stringer's challenge to the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea due to the inadequacies of the trial court's advisements to him cannot be undertaken on direct appeal.”). Thus, we will not consider Morelock's arguments challenging his admissions to the sentence enhancements.² Having established Morelock's enhancements stand in this direct appeal, we now consider his argument that his sentence is inappropriate.

2. Appellate Rule 7(B)

[18] Morelock argues his “severe medical history, mental health struggles, expressed remorse, and ․ commitment to rehabilitation” warrant a reduction of his seventy-five-year sentence. Appellant's Br. at 12. Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is an “attempt to leaven the outliers,” guided by “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Because sentencing is a discretionary function, “a trial court's sentencing decision will generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard[,] and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).’ ” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1093 (Ind. 2025) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). The defendant has the burden to prove his sentence is inappropriate. Id. at 1092.

[19] When assessing the nature of the offense, we begin with the advisory sentence. Norton v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1285, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Because Morelock's sentence for Level 1 felony attempted murder predominates his aggregate sentence, we focus on that conviction. A Level 1 felony conviction carries a sentence between twenty and forty years, with the advisory sentence being thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(b). Here, the trial court sentenced Morelock to forty years, the longest term permitted by statute. The seventeen-and-a-half-year terms the court imposed on each enhancement likewise came close to the statutory maximums.³ See I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(1) (providing an enhanced sentencing range between eight and twenty years when a habitual offender commits a Level 1 through Level 4 felony); I.C. § 35-50-2-11(h) (providing an enhanced sentencing range between five and twenty years when a person points or discharges a firearm at a police officer while committing an offense).

[20] When the trial court deviates from the advisory sentence, we consider “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the ‘typical’ offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence.” Norton, 235 N.E.3d at 1291 (quoting T.A.D.W. v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1205, 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). Morelock makes no argument regarding the nature of his offense aside from claiming “[h]is actions during the incident ․ reflected [his poor] mental state ․” Appellant's Br. at 12. But this argument downplays the egregiousness of his crime. Attempting to murder a police officer—a person who routinely risks his life to keep the public safe—“is a most serious crime.” Salyers v. State, 862 N.E.2d 650, 654 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 609 (Ind. 2001), reh'g denied, cert. denied) (declining to find life without parole inappropriate where the defendant murdered one police officer and attempted to kill another). And here, Morelock ambushed Officer Branson despite repeated commands to keep his hands visible, fired multiple times at the officer with his girlfriend in the line of fire, and attempted to end his own life rather than face the consequences of his actions. Also, Morelock ingested illegal drugs before he attempted to murder Officer Branson. At the time, he had pending felony charges, knew he was under investigation, and it was illegal for him to possess a firearm. In addition to sustaining a minor gunshot wound, the shooting took a grave toll on Officer Brason's mental health and negatively impacted his personal life and career. Morelock has failed to show the nature of his offenses warrants a downward revision of his sentence.

[21] When one prong of the Rule 7(B) analysis “militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 127 (Ind. 2024). We evaluate a defendant's character by examining his life, qualities, and conduct. Howard v. State, 266 N.E.3d 304, 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). In support of his character, Morelock points to his mental and physical health issues and the fact that he expressed remorse and a commitment to rehabilitation. He fails to provide much in the way of analysis tying these factors to the appropriateness of his sentence, but argues “[t]his is precisely the kind of case for which Rule 7(B) exists.” Appellant's Br. at 12. We disagree.

[22] Morelock's claims related to his health issues ring hollow given that at the time he committed attempted murder he was evading arrest warrants issued in other criminal matters. He had been released from custody to address his medical issues but hadn't done so and instead failed to appear for his criminal proceedings. Additionally, Morelock's self-reported mental health issues were not substantiated, and his suicide attempt must be viewed in context. At trial, Morelock testified he didn't intend to kill Officer Branson and merely fired his weapon to get the officer to kill him because he was suicidal and didn't want to go back to jail. However, the jury found he intended to kill the officer which indicates they did not see his actions as a suicide attempt, but as a last-ditch effort to avoid incarceration. See Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1249 (Ind. 2024) (finding no evidence demonstrating a nexus between the defendant's mental health issues and crime).

[23] Finally, when a defendant expresses remorse and a desire to rehabilitate, “[w]e defer to the sentencing court's assessment of [his] sincerity.” Thomas v. State, 249 N.E.3d 1118, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). Given Morelock's substantial criminal record—which is always relevant when analyzing a defendant's character—the court had ample reason to find Morelock's claims insincere or not significantly mitigating. See Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 700 (Ind. 2024) (noting even a minor criminal history reflects negatively on a defendant's character). “The significance of criminal history varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Maffett v. State, 113 N.E.3d 278, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). And when Morelock committed attempted murder at age thirty-nine, he had already demonstrated an unwillingness to abide by the laws of this state over the span of decades. In addition to his substantial juvenile record, he accumulated five felony and eleven misdemeanor convictions as an adult, some of which involved the use of violence. Moreover, he violated the terms of his suspended sentences on several occasions and failed to avail himself of sentences which afforded him opportunities to address his substance abuse. Finally, he had felony charges pending at the time he committed the offense. See Eisert v. State, 102 N.E.3d 330, 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (committing crimes while on pre-trial release reflects poorly on one's character), trans. denied. Given Morelock's extensive criminal history and the dearth of compelling evidence portraying his character in a positive light, he has failed to show his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.

Conclusion

[24] For these reasons, we conclude that Morelock's challenge to the sentence enhancements is not properly before us and that his seventy-five-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[25] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   These messages were extracted from a cell phone recovered from vehicle following the May 7 shooting. Although these messages were sent from a Facebook account under the name Rico Swavé, that same account sent a selfie to Peters of Morelock holding a handgun in another message, and the phone contained a Cash App account under Morelock's name. Thus, the jury could infer this was Morelock's phone and that he sent these messages.

2.   While he now contests these admissions on appeal, Morelock argued at sentencing that his willingness to admit the sentence enhancements should be considered a mitigating factor. See Tr. Vol. 3 at 149.

3.   Morelock does not allege the trial court erred in sentencing him on each of the two enhancements. However, we note that the court did not impose an “impermissible double enhancement” here. Woodruff v. State, 80 N.E.3d 216, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (reviewing the law on double enhancements and affirming a Level 3 felony aggravated battery sentence enhanced by both a habitual offender and firearm enhancement), trans. denied.

DeBoer, Judge.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.