Sec. 5. (a) A person may, with respect to the same
transaction, be deprived of any part of the educational credit or good
time credit the person has earned for any of the following:
(1) A violation of one (1) or more rules of the department of
correction.
(2) If the person is not committed to the department, a violation
of one (1) or more rules of the penal facility in which the person
is imprisoned.
(3) A violation of one (1) or more rules or conditions of a:
(A) community transition program; or
(B) community corrections program.
(4) If a court determines that a civil claim brought by the person
in a state or an administrative court is frivolous, unreasonable, or
groundless.
(5) If the person is a sex or violent offender (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5) and refuses to register before being released from the
department as required under IC 11-8-8-7.
(6) If the person is a sex offender (as defined in IC 11-8-8-4.5)
and refuses to participate in a sex offender treatment program
specifically offered to the sex offender by the department of
correction while the person is serving a period of incarceration
with the department of correction.
However, the violation of a condition of parole or probation may not be
the basis for deprivation, unless the person is confined on home
detention as a condition of probation under IC 35-38-2.5-5. Whenever
a person is deprived of educational credit or good time credit, the
person may also be reassigned to Class II (if the person is not a credit
restricted felon) or Class III, Class C, or Class D.
(b) Before a person may be deprived of educational credit or good
time credit, the person must be granted a hearing to determine the
person's guilt or innocence and, if found guilty, whether deprivation of
earned educational credit or good time credit is an appropriate
disciplinary action for the violation. In connection with the hearing, the
person is entitled to the procedural safeguards listed in section 4 of this
chapter. The person may waive the person's right to the hearing.
(c) Any part of the educational credit or good time credit of which
a person is deprived under this section may be restored.
(d) This subsection applies only to a person on pretrial home
detention. If a person on pretrial home detention violates a condition of
home detention, fails to appear as required, or commits escape (IC 35-44.1-3-4), the person shall be deprived of all accrued time earned
while on pretrial home detention. The person may also be deprived of
educational or good time credit in accordance with this section, if
applicable. Before a person may be deprived of accrued time, the
person must be granted a hearing to determine whether the person
committed the specified violation. In connection with the hearing, the
person is entitled to the procedural safeguards listed in section 4 of this
chapter. The person may waive the person's right to the hearing.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.8. Amended by Acts
1977, P.L.340, SEC.136; Acts 1979, P.L.120, SEC.13; P.L.146-1995,
SEC.6; P.L.90-2000, SEC.23; P.L.140-2006, SEC.39 and
P.L.173-2006, SEC.39; P.L.80-2008, SEC.5; P.L.105-2010, SEC.16;
P.L.158-2013, SEC.671; P.L.168-2014, SEC.124; P.L.74-2015,
SEC.35; P.L.37-2023, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Parks v. Madison Cnty., 783 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Parks v. Madison Cnty., 783 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 17× “Certainly, this lack of success, by itself, does not necessarily place the lawsuit within the ambit of Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-6-5. A review of his lawsuits, however, reveals that when a decision is rendered against Parks, he has a penchant for dressing old arguments in new…”
Campbell v. State, 714 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “CODE § 35-50-6-5. Although Campbell is entitled to credit time, he "may be deprived of earned credit time as provided under rules adopted by the department of correction under IND.”
Sumbry v. Boklund, 836 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2005).
· cites it 7× “Boklund also moved the trial court to certify Sumbry's action as "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless" under Indiana Code section 35-50-6-5(a)(4). The trial court's order states that the court found "no merit" to Sumbry's complaint, but the court "refuse[d] to certify the…”
Bleeke v. Lemmon, 6 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. 2014).
· cites it 2× “And the statutes make clear that an inmate may “be deprived of any part of the credit time the person has earned ... [i]f the person is a sex offender .”
Martin v. Heffelfinger, 744 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Finally, Martin alleges that the trial court erroneously declared his suit frivolous under Ind.Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(8). We address each argument in turn.”
Hildebrandt v. State, 770 N.E.2d 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5 (1998 & Supp.2002).”
Crow v. State, 797 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “") (emphasis added); § 35-50-6-5; § 35-50-6-5.5; Ind. Admin. Code tit.”
Boyd v. Broglin, 519 N.E.2d 541 (Ind. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Boyd argues he was deprived of his earned credit time by the parole board's revocation of his parole in violation of Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5 (a), which provides: A person may, with respect to the same transaction, be deprived of any part of the credit time he has earned for…”
Rodgers v. State, 705 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “” Ind.Code § 35-50-6-5. This limitation is necessary, as it pertains to “good time” credit because, in order to receive “good time” credit, a person must be imprisoned and cannot earn the credit while on parole or probation.”
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, we note that the revocation of Harris's parole did not deprive him of his *283 earned credit time under Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-5. That statute provides: (a) A person may, with respect to the same transaction, be deprived of any part of the credit time he has…”
Irwin v. State, 744 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Criminal statutes are to be strictly interpreted and Irwin is correct in his assertion that the trial court was without authority, pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-50-6-5 (Deprivation of credit time), to have imposed a condition for his earning of good time credit and we strongly urge…”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(a) — 4 cases
Campbell v. State, 714 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
“CODE § 35-50-6-5. Although Campbell is entitled to credit time, he "may be deprived of earned credit time as provided under rules adopted by the department of correction under IND.”
Boyd v. Broglin, 519 N.E.2d 541 (Ind. 1988).
“Boyd argues he was deprived of his earned credit time by the parole board's revocation of his parole in violation of Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5 (a), which provides: A person may, with respect to the same transaction, be deprived of any part of the credit time he has earned for…”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(2) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(4) — 7 cases
Parks v. Madison Cnty., 783 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
“Certainly, this lack of success, by itself, does not necessarily place the lawsuit within the ambit of Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-6-5. A review of his lawsuits, however, reveals that when a decision is rendered against Parks, he has a penchant for dressing old arguments in new…”
Sumbry v. Boklund, 836 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2005).
“Boklund also moved the trial court to certify Sumbry's action as "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless" under Indiana Code section 35-50-6-5(a)(4). The trial court's order states that the court found "no merit" to Sumbry's complaint, but the court "refuse[d] to certify the…”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(5) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(6) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(8) — 1 case
Martin v. Heffelfinger, 744 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“Finally, Martin alleges that the trial court erroneously declared his suit frivolous under Ind.Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(8). We address each argument in turn.”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(a)(d) — 2 cases
Parks v. Madison Cnty., 783 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
“Certainly, this lack of success, by itself, does not necessarily place the lawsuit within the ambit of Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-6-5. A review of his lawsuits, however, reveals that when a decision is rendered against Parks, he has a penchant for dressing old arguments in new…”
Sumbry v. Boklund, 836 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2005).
“Boklund also moved the trial court to certify Sumbry's action as "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless" under Indiana Code section 35-50-6-5(a)(4). The trial court's order states that the court found "no merit" to Sumbry's complaint, but the court "refuse[d] to certify the…”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(b) — 5 cases
Campbell v. State, 714 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
“CODE § 35-50-6-5. Although Campbell is entitled to credit time, he "may be deprived of earned credit time as provided under rules adopted by the department of correction under IND.”
Crow v. State, 797 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“") (emphasis added); § 35-50-6-5; § 35-50-6-5.5; Ind. Admin. Code tit.”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(c) — 3 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-50-6-5(d) — 1 case
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.