Dylan Reed Roberts, Appellant-Defendant/Cross-Appellee v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Dylan Roberts appeals his sentence following the Bartholomew Superior Court's revocation of his probation. Roberts raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court's written sentencing order conflicts with the court's oral sentencing order.¹

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On October 1, 2024, Roberts pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 felony auto theft, and his plea agreement left sentencing open to the trial court's discretion. On November 6, the trial court sentenced Roberts to concurrent sentences of three and one-half years for the Level 5 felony and two years for the Level 6 felony, for an aggregate term of three and one-half years with credit for time served and the remainder suspended to probation in community corrections.

[4] On May 22, 2025, the State filed a petition to revoke Roberts's probation. The State alleged that Roberts had: removed his monitoring device without permission and left his residence; failed to provide notice of an address change; and failed to pay costs and fees. At a fact-finding hearing on October 1, Roberts admitted to the violations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Roberts had violated his probation and sentenced him as follows:

Alright. I am sentencing [Roberts] to an additional 120 days, that would be 90 actual that he has to serve. It will be served on the Bartholomew County Work Release program. [He will] pay all associated costs and comply with the terms and conditions of that program․ I'll do the math when we do the abstract. But [an] additional 120 days sentence, that is 90 days to be served on work release, as long as you comply with all the terms and conditions of the work release and you get credit for that. And then based upon the request we will show you discharged unsuccessfully from probation.

Tr. pp. 30-31. In its written sentencing order, issued the same day, the trial court described Roberts's sentence as follows:

For violation of probation, the Court orders [that Roberts] receive credit for time served of 144 actual jail days towards the sentence of imprisonment for time spent in confinement as a result of this charge (2/7/2025 - 5/11/2025; 8/13/2025 - 10/1/2025) and then returned to probation for an additional 120 days with good time credit, under the same terms and conditions as ordered November 6, 2024, with the following additional conditions: that he be placed in work release. If the defendant completes his Community Correction/work release sentence his probation will be terminated unsuccessfully.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 17.

[5] One week later, on October 7, the State filed a verified petition to revoke Roberts's direct commitment alleging that he had absconded from the Community Corrections Work Release Center on October 3. And on October 8, Roberts filed a motion to correct error alleging that the trial court's oral and written sentencing statements on October 1 were inconsistent regarding whether he was serving an executed sentence on work release or on work release as a condition of probation. The trial court denied Roberts's motion to correct error and clarified that it had intended that he would remain on probation until he successfully completed work release. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Roberts argues that the trial court's oral and written sentencing statements conflict. He maintains that the court's oral statement terminated his probation, while the written statement did not. Roberts is incorrect.

[7] When oral and written sentencing statements conflict, we examine them together to discern the intent of the sentencing court. Skipworth v. State, 68 N.E.3d 589, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). We may remand the case for correction of clerical errors if the trial court's intent is unambiguous. Id.

[8] Here, while the court's oral and written sentencing statements are not identically worded, the intention to keep Roberts on probation is clear in both statements. In the oral statement, the trial court advised Roberts that he had to successfully complete work release. The court continued, “And then based upon the request [by the State,] we will show you discharged unsuccessfully from probation.”² Tr. p. 31 (emphasis added). Thus, the court tied the discharge from probation to having first completed work release. The written sentencing statement clearly stated that his probation would be terminated “[i]f” he completed work release. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 17.

[9] In any event, any inconsistency between the oral and written sentencing statements was cleared up by the trial court's order denying Roberts's motion to correct error. The trial court clarified that Roberts would remain on probation until his successful completion of work release.

[10] Roberts has not shown reversible error.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In a footnote, the State purports to raise one issue on cross-appeal, namely, whether Roberts's claim “may not be ripe for review.” Appellee's Br. at 8 n.1. We decline to address the ripeness issue for lack of cogent argument.

2.   The State had requested that Roberts serve executed time, after which he would be unsuccessfully terminated from probation.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.