HERRING v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Brandon Herring (“Herring”) challenges the trial court's calculation of his pretrial home detention credit time, arguing that the trial court should have applied the amended credit time statute in effect at the time of his sentencing to calculate his credit time. The State concedes that the amended credit time statute is applicable and that Herring should receive the benefit of additional credit time. We agree with the parties and therefore reverse the sentencing order and remand with instructions to award credit time based upon the amended credit time statute.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 27, 2021, Herring was arrested and later charged with Level 1 felony aggravated battery. On September 22, 2021, Herring was released on bond and as a condition of his release, Herring was placed on pretrial home detention. See Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 23.

[3] On October 7, 2021, a Notice of Pretrial Release Violation was filed, and the State filed a petition to revoke bond, alleging Herring violated a no contact order. The next day, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. On October 10, 2021, an Amended Notice of Pretrial Release Violation was filed, alleging that Herring failed to comply with conditions of his pretrial home detention and that “the electronic monitoring device ha[d] been compromised and/or removed from their person.” Id. at 75. On October 20, 2021, Herring was arrested and remained incarcerated until December 4, 2021. On December 4, 2021, Herring was released to pretrial home detention. Almost three years later, on October 16, 2024, the trial court approved removing Herring from pretrial home detention. See id. at 12, 169.

[4] A jury trial was held on October 21–23, 2024, and the jury found Herring guilty as charged. After the conclusion of the trial, Herring was remanded into custody and remained incarcerated until his sentencing hearing. On November 21, 2024, the trial court sentenced Herring to thirty-five years in the Indiana Department of Correction with eighteen years executed, two years executed on home detention, and fifteen years suspended with three of those years on probation. The trial court ordered 1,477 days of pre-sentence credit time (1,168 days accrued time and 309 days good time credit), which reflected the following:

• 36 days (27 days accrued time, 9 days good time credit) for time spent in jail from August 27–September 22, 2021;

• 21 days (17 days accrued time, 4 days good time credit) for time spent on pretrial home detention from September 23–October 9, 2021;

• 60 days (45 days accrued time, 15 days good time credit) for time spent in jail from October 20–December 3, 2021;

• 1,320 days (1,049 days accrued time, 271 days good time credit) for time spent on pretrial home detention from December 4, 2021–October 17, 2024; and

• 40 days (30 days accrued time, 10 days good time credit) for time spent in jail from October 23–November 21, 2024.

See Tr. Vol. IV pp. 151–152.

[5] At the sentencing hearing, the parties disagreed with the calculation of Herring's credit time. The parties agreed as to Herring's actual days spent in jail or on pretrial home detention but disagreed as to whether Herring was entitled to one day of credit for every three days, or every four days Herring spent on pretrial home detention. The disagreement was based upon an amendment to the credit time statute that became effective after Herring committed the underlying crime but prior to his sentencing. The trial court's calculations of his credit time were based upon Herring receiving one day of credit for every four days he spent on pretrial home detention. Herring now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Herring argues that the trial court erred in awarding credit time for the time he spent on pretrial home detention prior to sentencing. On appeal, the State concedes that Herring is entitled to one day of credit for every three days he spent on pretrial home dentition, resulting in an additional 81 days of credit time. “Credit time is a matter of statutory right and trial courts do not have discretion in awarding or denying such credit.” Moon v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1156, 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “To the extent that a claim involving credit time requires statutory interpretation, we engage in de novo review.” Paul v. State, 177 N.E.3d 472, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Temme v. State, 169 N.E.3d 857, 859 (Ind. 2021)). “As to statutory interpretation, our primary goal is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” Id. (citing Rodriguez v. State, 129 N.E.3d 789, 796 (Ind. 2019)).

[7] While Herring was on pretrial home detention, and prior to his sentencing, the statute regarding pretrial home detention credit time was amended. Previously, Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.1 (2020) provided that “[t]his section applies to a person who commits an offense after June 30, 2014[,]” and that “[a] person assigned to Class P earns one (1) day of good time credit for every four (4) days the person serves on pretrial home detention awaiting trial. A person assigned to Class P does not earn accrued time for time served on pretrial home detention awaiting trial.” See also Ind. Code § 35-50-6-4(i) (2016) (credit time classification for a person placed on pretrial home detention).

[8] However, in July 2023, the statute regarding pretrial home detention credit was amended to eliminate Class P credit time, which had been uniform across all offense levels, and assigned those on pretrial home dentition to a credit time class corresponding to their offense level. Herring's offense level classification was for Class B credit time and provided that: “[a] person assigned to Class B earns one (1) day of good time credit for every three (3) calendar days or partial calendar days the person is: ․ on pretrial home detention.” I.C. § 35-50-6-3.1(c) (2023). The statute regarding pretrial home detention credit retained the following language stating that it “applie[d] to a person who commit[ted] an offense after June 30, 2014.” I.C. § 35-50-6-3.1(a) (2023). Indiana Code section 35-50-6-4(b) (2023) was also amended and provides that “[a] person ․ who is imprisoned for a crime other than a Level 6 felony or misdemeanor or imprisoned awaiting trial or sentencing for a crime other than a Level 6 felony or misdemeanor; is initially assigned to Class B.”

[9] We agree with the parties that the amended statute applies to Herring. The amendment became effective after Herring committed the offense (August 2021) and prior to his sentencing on November 21, 2024. Because we conclude that the amended pretrial credit statute was applicable, Herring is entitled to receive one day of good time credit for every three days he served on pretrial home detention. See I.C. § 35-50-6-3.1(c) (2023). Therefore, Herring is entitled to an additional 81 days of credit time. The following is a revised summary of his credit time earned prior to sentencing.

• 36 days (27 days accrued time, 9 days good time credit) for time spent in jail from August 27–September 22, 2021;

• 23 days (17 days accrued time, 6 days good time credit) for time spent on pretrial home detention from September 23–October 9, 2021;

• 60 days (45 days accrued time, 15 days good time credit) for time spent in jail from October 20–December 3, 2021;

• 1,399 days (1,049 days accrued time, 350 days good time credit) for time spent on pretrial home detention from December 4, 2021–October 17, 2024; and

• 40 days (30 days accrued time, 10 days good time credit) for time spent in jail from October 23–November 21, 2024.

• Total: 1,168 accrued time days and 390 credit days earned for a total credit time of 1,558 days.

[10] Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to award credit time to Herring based on the amended credit time statute that was effective on the date of his sentencing.

[11] Reversed and remanded.

Foley, Judge.

Altice, C.J. and May, J., concur