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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT