ILNews

Court rules on literacy program, educational credit time

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While applauding a prison inmate for pursuing higher education while behind bars, the Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that man shouldn’t receive additional educational credit time for a program the state system doesn’t consider to fit into its definition of “literacy and life skills” programs.

Issuing a unanimous opinion today in Indiana Department of Correction v. Douglas Haley, No. 56A03-0911-CR-553, the appellate panel reversed a Newton Superior judge’s ruling that a convicted cocaine dealer should receive six months of credit time for completing a DOC life skills program, “Thinking for a Change.”

The state agency had declined his motion for that credit, arguing that it only fit one component of state statute about “basic life skills” but not another involving “literacy.” The DOC asserted a “literacy” program is a term of art originating in the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998, and that it doesn’t apply to someone pursuing a bachelor’s degree or higher education at the level Haley was in this case. Though Indiana Code 35-50-6-3.3 awards two years credit time for earning a bachelor’s degree, it doesn’t permit someone to earn credit time under two different provisions for the same program of study as Haley was contending should be allowed.

Based on that language, the appellate court deferred to the DOC interpretation and found the trial judge had erred in allowing the six months of credit time.

“That does not mean that Haley is ineligible for any educational credit, however,” Judge Terry Crone wrote, noting that he could receive the two-year credit but nothing in the court record reflects that’s been applied for or received. “Haley’s argument has merit, and moreover, we applaud him for seeking and attaining such a high level of education. However, our rules of statutory construction require that we read the statute as a whole.”

The appellate court reversed the trial court judge on that issue, and also held that the prosecuting attorney isn’t authorized by statute to represent DOC in a non-criminal matter as such disputes are between an inmate and the state agency.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT