ILNews

Justices: Good-time-credit amendment not retroactive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court interpreted a 2010 amendment on credit time earned during placement in community corrections to only apply to those placed on home detention on or after its July 1, 2010, effective date.

Douglas Cottingham sought to receive good-time credit under Indiana Code 35-38-2.6-6 when his home detention under a community-corrections program was revoked and he was ordered to serve time in the Department of Correction. He was placed on home detention before the 2010 amendment took effect.

Before the amendment to section 6, the General Assembly expressly provided that persons placed on home detention in community-corrections programs weren’t entitled to earn good-time credit. The amendment removed language preventing someone from earning that credit.

Justice Frank Sullivan noted in the opinion released Thursday that there is a conflict in the Indiana Court of Appeals on whether the amendment is retroactive. The justices examined the amendment language and held that it only applies to people put on home detention on July 1, 2010, or later.

“By using ‘is placed’ (or by not amending that language as it existed in the prior statute), we think that the Legislature intended for this amendment to apply only to those persons who ‘are placed’ on home detention on or after the amendment’s effective date,” he wrote. “If the Legislature intended for the amendment to apply to persons who had already been placed on home detention, it would have used language to include such persons – language like ‘a person who has been placed’ or even ‘a person who is in community corrections.’"

He pointed out an offender who committed an offense before the statute’s effective date and was placed on home detention after the effective date would be eligible for good-time credit.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT