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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?