Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3 (2026)
Credit time classes for a person convicted before July 1, 2014
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. (a) This section applies to a person who commits an offense before July 1, 2014.
(b) A person assigned to Class I earns one (1) day of good time credit for each calendar day or partial calendar day the person is imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting trial or sentencing.
(c) A person assigned to Class II earns one (1) day of good time credit for every two (2) calendar days or partial calendar days the person is imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting trial or sentencing.
(d) A person assigned to Class III earns no good time credit.
(e) A person assigned to Class IV earns one (1) day of good time credit for every six (6) calendar days or partial calendar days the person is imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting trial or sentencing.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.8. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.134; P.L.80-2008, SEC.2; P.L.158-2013, SEC.667; P.L.168-2014, SEC.120; P.L.74-2015, SEC.32; P.L.45-2022, SEC.12.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 233
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Crow v. State, 797 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Crow v. State, 797 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “While the judgment of conviction statute does not specifically reference Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3, it refers to credit "earned.”
Jacob Maciaszek v. State of Indiana, 75 N.E.3d 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3 (requiring defendant be “confined awaiting trial or sentencing”).”
Weaver v. State, 725 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “In particular, he urges that a defendant who has not been awarded proper credit time under Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3 may seek review of this error at any time, because a defendant should not and cannot be incarcerated for any duration longer than that allowed by law.”
Molden v. State, 750 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “In Capes, this court concluded that a person who is confined in home detention *451 awaiting trial should not earn sentence credit under Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3. Capes, 615 N.E.2d at 455 .”
Bennett v. State, 787 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Credit for Time Served A. Standard of Review A person imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting trial or sentencing earns one day of credit time for each day he is confined.”
Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Whether Jones's sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate under Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3(a) and Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).”
Sharp v. State, 970 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. 2012). “Ind.Code § 35-50-6-3. A defendant is initially assigned to credit class I or IV depending on whether the defendant is a credit restricted felon.”
Campbell v. State, 714 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “CODE § 35-50-6-3, our supreme court has defined credit time as "a statutory reward for a lack of conduct that is in violation of institutional rules.”
Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004). “Credit time is accrued in two ways: (1) by the credit time classification to which a prisoner is assigned, Indiana Code § 35-50-6-3, and (2) by educational achievement pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-50-6-8.”
Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 1998). “The trial court determined that because defendant was incarcerated for some other crime by some other court, he was not entitled to credit for the time served in Indiana.”
Senn v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “With this in mind, Senn argued that pursuant to I.C. § 35-50-6-3, he was owed 546 days of credit for the 273 days he served in the Bartholomew County Jail.”
Aaron Young v. State of Indiana, 973 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “” Ind.Code § 35-50-6-3. 2 In its supplemental sentencing statement, the trial court found: The Court, having taken the State’s request that it find the defendant to be a “Credit Restricted Felon” under advise *1228 ment, and the Court having the occasion to review the transcript…”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(a) — 46 cases
Crow v. State, 797 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “While the judgment of conviction statute does not specifically reference Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3, it refers to credit "earned.”
Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Whether Jones's sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate under Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3(a) and Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).”
State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008).
Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 1998). “The trial court determined that because defendant was incarcerated for some other crime by some other court, he was not entitled to credit for the time served in Indiana.”
Senn v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “With this in mind, Senn argued that pursuant to I.C. § 35-50-6-3, he was owed 546 days of credit for the 273 days he served in the Bartholomew County Jail.”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(a)(1) — 1 case
Murfitt v. State, 812 N.E.2d 809 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(a)(2) — 1 case
Racquel Postiglione v. State of Indiana, 84 N.E.3d 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(b) — 5 cases
Kevin Hamilton v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
Lance Brownlee v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Robert W. Adams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Paul J. Pacheco v. Keith Butts, Superintendent of the New Castle Corr. Facility (mem .dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
Mark A. Thacker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(b)(c) — 1 case
Kindred v. State, 771 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(c) — 1 case
Miller v. Walker, 655 N.E.2d 47 (Ind. 1995).
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(d) — 13 cases
Gaby v. State, 949 N.E.2d 870 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Danny Boling v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Upton v. State, 904 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Buchanan v. State, 956 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Charles Gross v. State of Indiana, 41 N.E.3d 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3(e) — 1 case
Lance Brownlee v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.