ILNews

COA: No credit for pretrial home detention

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision not to award a man credit time for pretrial home detention, finding the man's rights weren't violated under the federal or Indiana constitutions.

Marques Lewis was arrested for criminal trespass and criminal gang activity and incarcerated. He later was released on his own recognizance to go on home detention. Lewis pleaded guilty to the charge of criminal trespass and pursuant to the plea agreement, his sentence couldn't be more than 730 days.

Lewis wanted credit for the actual days he served on home detention, claiming there was little difference between pre-trial home detainees and post-conviction home detainees. He based his argument on a response from Community Corrections regarding his inquiry about the difference between the two, which said the only differences between the two could be any additional conditions the court may order, such as additional testing. The trial court denied giving him credit for the 275 days he was on home detention.

In Marques Lewis v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0806-CR-319, the Court of Appeals examined the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion because there isn't a statute mandating an award of credit time served while on pretrial home detention, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

The appellate court rejected Lewis' argument that treating people on pretrial home detention and post-sentence home detention differently violates the Equal Protection Clause. Lewis hadn't been convicted of a crime yet and when he was placed in home detention, he accepted the conditions he now asserts to be the same as those applying to post-sentence home detainees. Judge Darden noted Lewis would have earned more credit time had he remained in jail.

"Moreover, if Lewis had violated the conditions of his pretrial home detention, he would have risked being returned to jail to await trial while still presumed to be innocent; whereas, a post-sentence home detainee who violates conditions of home detention risks being sent to prison," he wrote.

Lewis' argument that the different treatment of people on pretrial home detention and post-sentence home detention violates Indiana's Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause also failed. Citing Senn v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), the appellate court ruled home detention as a condition of pretrial release isn't "upon the same terms" as home detention as a condition of a sentence or probation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT