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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT