Douglas Cottingham was placed on home detention under the supervision of a community-corrections program before a 2010 amendment to Indiana Code section 35-38-2.6-6 took effect. He argues that he is entitled to “good time credit” for his time served on home detention pursuant to that statutory amendment. We conclude that the statutory amendment does not apply to him.
. . . .
Cottingham appealed, claiming (1) that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence; and (2) that the trial court erred in not giving him good time credit for the time he spent on home detention pursuant to amended Indiana Code section 35-38-2.6-6 (which took effect on July 1, 2010). The Court of Appeals rejected Cottingham’s first argument, Cottingham v. State, 952 N.E.2d 245, 247-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh’g denied, but accepted his second, holding that Cottingham was entitled to good time credit under the doctrine of amelioration, id. at 248-49. . . . .
As an initial matter, we note that there is a conflict in the Court of Appeals concerning this issue, cf. Brown v. State, 947 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that amended statute does not apply retroactively), trans. denied, [footnote omitted] and because of this conflict, we too refrain from disposing of this issue on the basis of waiver, see Cottingham, 952 N.E.2d at 248 (addressing this issue despite waiver).
This appeal and others have stemmed from the Legislature’s 2010 amendment to the Indiana Code section concerning good-time-credit [footnote omitted] eligibility for persons placed on home detention in community-corrections programs.
. . . .
Thus, before the amendment to Indiana Code section 35-38-2.6-6, the General Assembly expressly provided that persons placed on home detention in community-corrections programs were not entitled to earn good time credit. [Footnote omitted.] But now, after the amendment, there is no statutory language preventing persons placed on home detention from earning such credit. And so we have the issue before the two panels of the Court of Appeals and now before us: whether amended Indiana Code section 35-38-2.6-6 applies to persons who have been placed on home detention prior to its effective date so that they may be entitled to good time credit. . . . .
. . . .
But ultimately we think that this issue is resolved by the language of the statute. “[O]ur primary goal of statutory construction is to determine, give effect to, and implement the intent of the Legislature.” City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612, 618 (Ind. 2007) (citation omitted). Here, we believe that the Legislature’s intent is made clear by its language: “A person who is placed in a community corrections program under this chapter is entitled to earn credit time under IC 35-50-6.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-6 (Supp. 2011) (emphasis added); cf. Purcell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 220, 223 (Ind. 1999) (relying on language of prior statute to conclude that although good time credit is not available for those placed on home detention, credit for time served is). By using “is placed” (or by not amending that language as it existed in the prior statute), we think that the Legislature intended for this amendment to apply only to those persons who “are placed” on home detention on or after the amendment’s effective date. If the Legislature intended for the amendment to apply to persons who had already been placed on home detention, it would have used language to include such persons – language like “a person who has been placed” or even “a person who is in community corrections.”
Based on the language of this statute, we hold that the amendment to Indiana Code section 35-38-2.6-6 applies to those who are placed on home detention on or after its effective date. Cottingham was placed on home detention before the statute’s effective date and so he is not eligible for good time credit.
Suppose, however, an offender committed an offense before the statute’s effective date and was placed on home detention but not until after the statute’s effective date. This offender is eligible for good time credit under the rule announced in this case. Accord Arthur v. State, 950 N.E.2d 343, 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (concluding that offender placed on home detention on July 30, 2010, after trial court modified commitment from work release to home detention was entitled to earn good time credit), trans. denied. In this respect, the “is placed” rule announced in this case operates as an exception to the general rule that the credit time statutes applicable in respect of an offense are those in force on the date the offense was committed. Purcell, 721 N.E.2d at 222 n.2.
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur.