« Ind. Gov't. - What the Democrats want | Main | Courts - ChicagoTribune wins suit over U of Illinois clout list »
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Ind. Courts - "Oral arguments at Jeffersonville High School on Wednesday in a criminal case that could impact thousands of home incarcerations across the state"
Yesterday' oral argument in the case of Mario Brown v. State of Indiana (see summary here in Upcoming Oral Arguments) is the focus of a Louisville Courier Journal article by Ben Zion Hershberg. Some quotes:
[The case] involves a man who pled guilty in Marion County in May 2009 to operating a vehicle after his license had been taken away permanently. He was sentenced to three years of home incarceration.[More] Here is coverage by Matt Thacker in the New Albany News & Tribune. A quote:A few weeks after he was sentenced, the General Assembly amended the home-incarceration law to say those in home incarceration were eligible for a day to be cut from their sentences for each day served with good behavior. The law previously didn’t allow such good-time credit for home incarceration.
Brown’s home incarceration was revoked after 412 days and he was sent to prison for the remainder of his sentence because he tested positive for marijuana use — a violation of his plea agreement.
After being put in jail, Brown filed a motion asking the court to grant him time off for good behavior for the days he had already been on home incarceration, arguing that the amended home-incarceration law should apply to him even though he already had been sentenced when the law was amended. * * *
“What role should the judiciary play?” [Judge] Najam asked, in deciding whether to apply the amended law to a case decided before the amendment with no guidance from the General Assembly.
[Victoria Bailey, Brown’s lawyer, a public defender from Indianapolis] said it was clear to her the law was amended because the legislature felt those in home incarceration were serving too long, so her client should get his good-time credit.
Karl Scharnberg, the deputy attorney general arguing against Bailey, said it wasn’t at all clear the General Assembly wanted to reduce the time prisoners like Brown would serve.
If the legislature wanted the amended law to apply retroactively, Scharnberg said it, would have said so in the amendment.
Victoria Bailey, representing Brown through the Marion County Public Defender Agency, argued the amendment is a “remedial statute” enacted to correct a “mischief,” or a defect, in the law and should be applied retroactively. The defect, she argued, was that people were spending too long on home incarceration.Scharnberg said it was not remedial but rather a change in public policy and argued it would be “nonsensical” to award good behavior for those sentenced under the old law. A prior Supreme Court decision stating that statutes should have only a prospective effect unless directly stated otherwise was also entered as argument.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 10, 2011 09:31 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts