Dylan E. Pride, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After the trial court modified Dylan Pride's lengthy prison sentence to allow him to serve his executed sentence on work release, Pride violated the terms of his work release placement by absconding for 31/212 hours—purportedly to go fishing. The trial court sanctioned Pride by revoking his probation and ordering him to execute more than 51/212 years of his previously suspended sentence. Pride appeals this sanction as too harsh. We affirm.

Facts

[2] In March 2019, Pride pleaded guilty to five felonies: (1) Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine; (2) Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine; (3) Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license; (4) Level 5 felony trafficking with an inmate; and (5) Level 6 felony theft. The trial court sentenced Pride to a total of 7,560 days (~20.7 years) in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), with 5,000 days (~13.7 years) executed and 2,560 days (~7 years) suspended to probation.

[3] After approximately four years in DOC, the trial court agreed to modify the remainder of Pride's executed sentence if he was accepted into a community corrections program. Pride was accepted into work release in December 2023, and the trial court modified his placement accordingly. Pride was soon working daily shifts at two different jobs. One day, around four months later, Pride did not return to the work release center after cancelling his shift at his second job. Pride's whereabouts were unknown for 31/212 hours, during which calls to his cellphone went unanswered.

[4] The next day, the State petitioned to revoke Pride's community corrections placement. Pride admitted to violating the terms of his work release program and, at a sanctioning hearing, explained to the trial court that he skipped work “to go fishing and have a little time to [him]self.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 28. The trial court found Pride was no longer a good candidate for community corrections and revoked his placement. The court also revoked Pride's probation and ordered him to serve 2,075 days (~5.7 years) of his previously suspended sentence in DOC. Pride appeals this sanction as unduly harsh.

Discussion and Decision

[5] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed.” Id. “Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard.” Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id.

[6] Pride argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sanctioning him to over 51/212 years in DOC simply for going fishing. Of course, the trial court was not obligated to credit Pride's testimony that he spent his 31/212 hours away from work release fishing. See Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004) (“As a general rule, factfinders are not required to believe a witness's testimony even when it is uncontradicted.”). But assuming the court believed Pride's story, context still matters.

[7] Pride was sentenced to nearly 21 years in prison for five felony convictions. The trial court initially showed him leniency by suspending roughly 7 of those years to probation. Then, four years later, the court again showed Pride leniency by modifying his sentence to allow him to serve the remaining 10 years of his executed sentence on work release. But four months after that, Pride brazenly absconded from his work release program so he could “go fishing and have a little time to [him]self.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 28. Even then, the court did not order him to execute all 2,560 days (~7 years) of his previously suspended sentence. It only ordered him to serve 2,075 days (~5.7 years).

[8] We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning Pride. We therefore affirm.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Felix concur. Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.