Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Nicole A. Zelin

Pritzke & Davis, LLP

Greenfield, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Megan M. Smith

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Garrett Marcus Morrow,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 31, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-476

Appeal from the Hancock Superior 

Court

The Honorable Dan E. Marshall, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

30D02-1909-F6-1878

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 9

[1] Garrett Marcus Morrow appeals his sentence for battery as a level 6 felony. He 

contends that he was denied a fair opportunity to controvert the presentence 

investigation report (“PSI”) and asserts his sentence is inappropriate. We 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On or about September 17, 2019, Morrow was an inmate at the Hancock 

County Jail and became disturbed by the sounds of the other inmates in his cell 

playing cards. Morrow knowingly or intentionally touched Thomas Joseph 

Fager in a rude, insolent, or angry manner by punching him resulting in 

moderate bodily injury including swelling and redness to his right eye.

[3] On September 30, 2019, the State charged Morrow with battery as a level 6 

felony. On December 2, 2019, the court held a hearing, and Morrow indicated 

he did not want counsel and pled guilty. The court informed Morrow: “You 

know you have the right to what we call a Presentence Investigation Report

where Probation will come in, meet with you and – uh – make a 

recommendation on the sentence.” Transcript Volume II at 9. The court 

stated: “Because this is a Level 6 Felony you can waive that right or you can 

have Probation go ahead and conduct that – that report. What would you like 

to do?” Id. Morrow answered: “Have them come talk to me.” Id. The court 

ordered a PSI and scheduled a sentencing hearing. 

[4] On December 26, 2019, the Hancock County Probation Department filed a PSI

which recommended a sentence of two years in the Hancock County Jail. An 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 9

entry in the chronological case summary dated December 27, 2019, states: 

“Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Pre-Sentence Investigation Report 

Filed – 12/26/2019: Garret Marcus Morrow[.]” Appellant’s Appendix Volume 

II at 5. 

[5] On January 2, 2020, the court held a sentencing hearing, and Morrow indicated 

he was prepared to proceed. The following exchange then occurred:

THE COURT: Mr. Morrow, did you receive a copy of the 

Presentence Investigation prepared by Probation?

MR. MORROW: Yes, Sir.

THE COURT: Did you read that document?

MR. MORROW: Yes, Sir.

THE COURT: Are you aware of any corrections that need to be 

made to it?

MR. MORROW: No, Sir.

* * * * *

THE COURT: Then I’ll show the Presentence Investigation 

approved as submitted. . . . 

* * * * *

THE COURT: State’s recommendation?

[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, the State would follow the 

recommendation as laid out . . . in the Presentence Investigation

by Miss Dobbs.

THE COURT: Sir, do you – uh – anything you’d like to say 

about the recommendation in this matter?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 9

MR. MORROW: No, Sir.

THE COURT: So, you don’t disagree with the State’s 

recommendation?

MR. MORROW: I didn’t even read what they recommend on 

there.

THE COURT: You do agree with it?

MR. MORROW: Yes.

Transcript Volume II at 13-15 (emphasis appears in original).

[6] The court sentenced Morrow to 730 days in the Hancock County Jail. The 

court stated: 

Sir, the recommendation of Probation including the possibility of 

a modification if you did certain things. I’m not including that in 

my Sentencing Order but that doesn’t mean you’re precluded 

from . . . filing a petition for modification. This is open 

sentencing, so I have the right to modify this sentence at any 

time. So, if you do wonderfully and do the things Probation has 

recommended in . . . this Presentence for the possibility of a 

modification, if you do those things and you file a motion, I’ll 

give you a hearing to determine whether your sentence should be 

modified.

Id. at 15. The court asked Morrow if he understood, and he answered 

affirmatively. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 9

Discussion

I.

[7] Morrow first argues that he was denied a fair opportunity to controvert the PSI 

and asserts he was provided with a copy of the PSI only five minutes prior to 

the hearing in violation of Ind. Code § 35-38-1-12(b).

1

 The State contends that 

Morrow’s argument is not supported by the record or case law.

[8] Ind. Code § 35-38-1-12(b) provides in part: “The court shall furnish the factual 

contents of the presentence investigation or a copy of the presentence report 

sufficiently in advance of sentencing so that the defendant will be afforded a fair 

opportunity to controvert the material included.” As a general matter, “it 

would be better if trial courts routinely made sure the pre-sentence report was 

available more than one day before the sentencing hearing . . . .” Lang v. State, 

461 N.E.2d 1110, 1114 (Ind. 1984). However, “[t]here is no specific deadline 

for the filing of a pre-sentence investigation report except that the factual 

contents or a copy of the report must be furnished ‘sufficiently in advance of 

sentencing so that the defendant will be afforded a fair opportunity to 

controvert the material included.’” Goudy v. State, 689 N.E.2d 686, 698-699 

(Ind. 1997) (quoting Ind. Code § 35-38-1-12(b)), reh’g denied. “[I]t is incumbent 

1 Morrow cites to a document signed by him and titled “AFFIDAVIT OF GARRETT MORROW” in which 

he asserted that his case was called for a hearing within five minutes of him receiving the twenty-two page 

PSI. Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 56. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 6 of 9

upon [the] defendant to show how he was prejudiced by a short time period 

within which to review a pre-sentence report.” Id. at 699.

[9] The record reveals that Morrow stated at the sentencing hearing that he was 

ready to proceed. While at one point Morrow stated, “I didn’t even read what 

they recommend on there,” Transcript Volume II at 14, when specifically asked 

by the trial court if he read the PSI, he answered affirmatively. Further, when 

asked if he was aware of any corrections that needed to be made to the PSI, he 

answered in the negative. Morrow did not request a continuance or additional 

time to read the recommendation. On appeal, Morrow asserts that he was not 

afforded a fair opportunity to review the PSI so that he could refute the 

probation officer’s recommendation, but does not point to any incorrect or 

inaccurate statements in the PSI or develop a cogent argument as to how he 

was harmed. Under these circumstances, we cannot say reversal is warranted. 

See Goudy, 689 N.E.2d at 699 (observing that the defendant made no claim that 

the PSI contained factual errors or inaccuracies requiring additional time to try 

to rebut and finding no error in the trial court’s denial of his request to continue 

the sentencing hearing); Eubank v. State, 456 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (Ind. 1983) 

(observing that the defendant received the report in advance of the sentencing 

hearing, stated that he had no evidence to present, failed to enumerate specific 

findings which he planned to controvert if given additional time, and failed to 

show how he was harmed, and holding that the trial court’s denial of his 

motion to continue the sentencing hearing did not warrant reversal).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 7 of 9

II.

[10] The next issue is whether Morrow’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and his character. Morrow argues the facts are not 

egregious and his criminal history was not so significant “as to affect his 

character to the extent that he should have been sentenced” to two years. 

Appellant’s Brief at 9. He requests that we revise his sentence to the advisory.

[11] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by 

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character 

of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade 

the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[12] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 provides that a person who commits a level 6 felony shall 

be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six months and two and one-half 

years, with the advisory sentence being one year. 

[13] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Morrow, who was born on 

December 28, 1995, was an inmate at the Hancock County Jail, became 

disturbed by the sounds of the other inmates in his cell playing cards, and 

knowingly or intentionally touched Fager in a rude, insolent, or angry manner 

by punching him resulting in moderate bodily injury including swelling and 

redness to his right eye.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 8 of 9

[14] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Morrow pled guilty. As 

a juvenile, Morrow had adjudications for strangulation and two counts of child 

molesting. As an adult, he has convictions for fraud and possession of 

marijuana, hash oil, hashish, or a synthetic drug in 2015; resisting law 

enforcement as a class A misdemeanor and unlawful possession or use of a 

precursor as a level 6 felony in 2018; and two counts of resisting law 

enforcement and two counts of domestic battery as class A misdemeanors in 

2019. The PSI indicates that Morrow reported having been on supervised 

probation five times which he admitted to never successfully completing. He 

also admitted to being placed into community corrections and failing to 

successfully complete it. The PSI states that Morrow received extensive 

therapeutic interventions as a juvenile and never complied with supervision by 

probation or community corrections. 

[15] The PSI states Morrow had significant childhood trauma and was raised in a 

home that was chaotic and marked by violence and drug use. It further 

provides that he received extensive services through the Department of Mental 

Health as well as through Hancock Probation Department and that his 

compliance was “minimal at best.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 30. 

Morrow admitted to first using marijuana around age fourteen and described 

his use as being at least one time each month. The PSI notes that Morrow 

denied the use of cocaine, meth, heroin, LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, bath 

salts, ecstasy, or any other known substances, and that prior police reports 

indicated he admitted to being under the influence of meth in the past and that, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-476 | August 31, 2020 Page 9 of 9

during one arrest, he required hospital care that included sedation due to his use 

of illegal substances. The PSI further provides that Morrow’s overall risk 

assessment score using the Indiana Risk Assessment System places him in the 

very high risk to reoffend category.

[16] After due consideration, we conclude that Morrow has not sustained his burden 

of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character.

[17] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Morrow’s sentence.

[18] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.