Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
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.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.