Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 1 of 13

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Meggan E. Smith

Amy E. Karozos

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Indiana Attorney General 

David A. Arthur

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Coila Bradford,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 22, 2023

Court of Appeals Case No.

22A-MI-2112

Appeal from the Parke Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Samuel A. Swaim, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

61C01-2207-MI-216

Opinion by Chief Judge Altice

Judges Riley and Pyle concur.

Altice, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 2 of 13

Case Summary

[1] Coila Bradford appeals the denial of her petition for habeas corpus, claiming 

that the trial court miscalculated the educational credit time she earned while 

incarcerated. Bradford contends that had the proper credit time been awarded, 

she would have the right to immediate discharge from the Indiana Department 

of Correction (the DOC). 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Bradford pleaded guilty to committing three drug-related crimes and was 

sentenced to an aggregate term of ten years at the DOC on March 20, 2013. 

Although Bradford was placed on probation at some point, she committed a 

new criminal offense during that period. As a result, the State filed a petition to 

revoke Bradford’s probation. Following a hearing on April 9, 2021, the trial 

court revoked Bradford’s probation and sentenced her to an aggregate four-year

term of incarceration. 

[4] Bradford opted into a Case Plan Credit Time (CPCT) agreement (the 

Agreement) with the DOC on October 21, 2021, to earn educational credit

time. Under that program, the offender’s “individualized case plan [is 

considered, along with] a more holistic view of a person’s incarceration 

period.” Transcript Vol. II at 44. If it can be demonstrated that recidivism will 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 3 of 13

be reduced and the offender shows progress toward being successful in the 

community, “[he or she would be awarded] credit time.” Id. 

[5] The Agreement provided that “[Bradford] will not earn credit time upon 

completion of [her] current program, but at the first CPCT review.” Exhibit 3. 

The Agreement further stated:

Regardless of when the offender opts-in to using an 

individualized case plan the amount of educational credit time 

available is capped at the lesser of two (2) years, or one-third (1/3) of the 

person’s total applicable credit time. 

Id. (emphasis added).

[6] After executing the Agreement, Bradford completed a “building trades” 

program in November 2021. Appellant’s Brief at 14. That program would have 

resulted in an award of ninety days of educational credit time prior to the

DOC’s adoption of the CPCT curriculum in 2020. Bradford did not participate 

in any other formal DOC program after completing that course on November 

23, 2021. After three CPCT reviews, the DOC awarded Bradford a total of 119 

days of credit time, which represented completing the building trades program, 

receiving satisfactory DOC reports, and satisfying other goals adopted by the 

DOC on or after January 1, 2022. 

[7] On July 22, 2022, Bradford filed a “verified application for issuance of writ of 

habeas corpus,” claiming that she was being illegally restrained because she has 

“served her full sentence if she had been . . . awarded [the proper] credit time.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 4 of 13

Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 8. Bradford alleged that the DOC erroneously 

calculated the amount of educational credit time to which she was entitled 

under its policies and the credit time statutes. More specifically, Bradford 

asserted that the DOC should have awarded her sixteen months of educational 

credit time, i.e., one-third of her four-year sentence, in accordance with the 

Agreement, the relevant statutes, and the DOC’s policy. As a result, Bradford 

claimed that had her credit time been properly determined, she would have

“already been released.” Id. at 8, 14. 

[8] Following a hearing on August 5, 2022, the trial court denied Bradford’s 

application for writ of habeas corpus, determining that Bradford’s restraint was 

not “illegal.” Id. at 75. The trial court recognized that “just because there are 

maximums that are set out in the statute for educational credit, that does not 

mean that the DOC ‘shall’ give that credit.” Id. (emphasis added). 

[9] Bradford now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

Discussion and Decision

[10] At the outset, we note that educational credit time for those incarcerated in the 

DOC is not an entitlement or a guarantee. Simply put, offenders have no 

constitutional right to receive credit time. Budd v. State, 935 N.E.2d 746, 753 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Educational credit time furthers the purpose of 

rehabilitative justice only if it is earned by the offender. See Paul v. State, 888 

N.E.2d 818, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (observing that the intent of the 

educational credit time statute, Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3, is to enhance 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 5 of 13

rehabilitation by providing incentive to further one’s education while 

incarcerated), trans. denied. 

[11] Educational credit was initially offered to incarcerated individuals in the DOC 

in 1993. See I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3 (1993). At that time, the statutes provided for 

completion of academic programs only, including a high school diploma or 

general equivalency degree, or an associate or bachelor’s degree. Id. An 

additional requirement—that the incarcerated individual had “demonstrated a 

pattern consistent with rehabilitation”—was later added. I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3 

(a)(2). In 2020, our legislature provided that educational credit could be 

awarded to offenders by completing “an individualized case management plan 

approved by [the DOC].” I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3(b)(3)(E). And in accordance with 

I.C. § 35-50-6-0.5(5): 

(5) ‘Individualized case management plan’ means educational 

credit which consists of a plan designed to address an 

incarcerated person’s risk of recidivism, and may include: 

(A) addiction recovery treatment; 

(B) mental health treatment; 

(C) vocational education programming; 

(D) adult basic education, a high school or high school 

equivalency diploma, a college diploma, and any other academic 

educational goal; or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 6 of 13

(E) any other programming or activity that encourages productive 

pursuits while a person is incarcerated and that may reduce the person’s 

likelihood to recidivate after the person’s release from incarceration. 

(Emphasis added). The CPCT program specifically considers the offender’s 

case plan, job performance, and “how the offender is performing in a given 

program.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 44. 

[12] Credit time is defined as “the sum of the person’s accrued time, good time 

credit, and educational credit.” I.C. § 35-50-6-0.5(3). And pursuant to I.C. § 

35-50-6-3.3(i) (effective through June 30, 2014), if a criminal offense was 

committed prior to July 1, 2014, the maximum amount of educational credit 

that an offender could earn was the lesser of: “(1) four . . . years, or (2) one-third 

. . . of the person’s total applicable credit time.” 

[13] Consistent with these statutes, the DOC incorporated the above parameters on 

credit time into its policies as follows: 

The maximum amount of credit time an offender may earn under 

this provision is the lesser of: 

(1) For offenses committed prior to July 1, 2014:

a. Four (4) years; or, 

b. One-third (1/3) of the offender’s total applicable credit 

time.

(2) For offenses committed on July 1, 2014 or after: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 7 of 13

a. Two (2) years; or, 

b. One-third (1/3) of the offender’s total applicable credit

time. 

Exhibit 1 (emphases added). 

[14] Those who arrive at a DOC facility after January 1, 2022, are automatically 

placed in CPCT. On the other hand, offenders who were in DOC custody 

before that date—like Bradford—could opt into the CPCT program. The 

amount of credit time is determined through periodic reviews at the DOC that 

measure how the offender has been progressing in meeting individualized case 

management plan goals. 

[15] The educational credit that is available under the CPCT program is “[a]n 

amount determined by the department of correction under a policy adopted by the 

department of correction concerning the individualized case management plan, 

not to exceed the maximum amount described in subsection (j).” I.C. § 35-50-6-

3.3(d)(9) (emphases added). I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3 does not set forth a minimum 

amount of credit time that may be earned; nor is there a guarantee of 

educational credit for meeting case plan goals or for completing a program. 

Additionally, if an offender completes a traditional program, it is considered at 

the CPCT review. The completed program does not result in a separate, 

identifiable award of credit. 

[16] John Mather, the Executive Director of Programs and Re-Entry Readiness at 

the DOC, testified at the habeas corpus hearing that the CPCT was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 8 of 13

implemented and designed “to make it proportional to the amount of time that 

folks were working towards those goals under the new structure.” Transcript

Vol. 2 at 48. The CPCT also takes into consideration that those offenders who 

arrive at the DOC after January 1, 2022, “will have their entire sentence to 

work on educational credit, yet those who are already in the prison system had 

opportunities under the prior scheme to earn educational credit for completing 

listed programs.” Id. Mather further testified that “it wouldn’t make sense in a 

situation for someone who their statutory maximum is . . . sixteen months, for 

them to participate in CPCT for only three months, and the[n] be awarded that 

full sixteen months.” Id. To be sure, the DOC sought to “set some parameters 

around how that time is awarded to make it proportional to the amount of time 

an individual is participating in [CPCT].” Id. at 47, 48. 

[17] Against this backdrop, Bradford contends that the credit time statutes and 

DOC’s policies entitled her to a total of sixteen months—or 487 days—of 

educational credit through CPCT, but the DOC awarded her only 119 days of 

credit time. She maintains that the DOC’s erroneous calculation of that time 

deprived her of the statutory ability to earn an additional 368 days. Bradford’s 

argument seemingly equates “eligibility” to earn credit time with an actual

“award” of credit time. 

[18] Notwithstanding Bradford’s contentions, she presented no evidence that she did 

anything to earn additional credit time. Bradford did not acquire a college 

degree, high school diploma or the equivalent; nor did she enroll in—or 

complete—a technical program other than building trades that was counted 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 9 of 13

toward her credited 119 days, along with “the other goals that she had worked 

towards during that time.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 49. Indeed, Bradford’s 

satisfactory job evaluations and her progress toward meeting various clinical 

review goals were factored into her earned credit time. Moreover, the evidence 

established that had Bradford not opted into the CPCT program, she would 

have earned only a maximum of ninety days for her completion of the building 

trades program. However, due to Bradford’s decision to opt into CPCT, she 

was awarded the additional days. Id. At no time was Bradford informed by 

any DOC representative that she would receive the maximum statutorily 

permitted credit time simply for opting in to CPCT. 

[19] Even assuming that Bradford may have been “eligible” to earn additional credit

under the statutes and DOC’s policies, she has made no showing that she was 

entitled to extra days. To illustrate, in Fuller v. Meloy, 848 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2006), the petitioners, who were incarcerated at the DOC, sought six 

months of credit time—which was the maximum amount of credit that could be 

earned under the statute—for completing a vocational program. When the 

DOC awarded the petitioners only three months of credit time, they sued, and 

the trial court upheld the DOC’s determination. 

[20] On appeal, a panel of this court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that 

the amount of educational credit to be awarded for completion of a vocational 

program is left to the DOC’s discretion. Id. at 1174. As the Fuller court 

determined, the DOC decides the amount of educational credit that is to be 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 10 of 13

awarded to an offender, so long as the maximum allowed under the statute is 

not exceeded. See I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3(d)(9).

1

 

[21] As there is no minimum amount of time that the DOC is required to award, 

and there is no requirement that credit time must be awarded to all who 

participate in the CPCT program, Bradford has failed to demonstrate that she 

was automatically entitled to additional credit under the statutes or the DOC’s 

policies. See, e.g., Indiana Dep’t of Correction v. Haley, 928 N.E.2d 840, 844 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2010 (recognizing that the DOC determines what programs qualify for 

awarding credit). Neither the Agreement nor the relevant statutes promise that 

487 days—or even one day—will be awarded. And nothing in the educational 

credit time statute automatically grants the statutory maximum to each offender 

who opts into the CPCT. 

[22] As a result, Bradford is entitled to an amount of credit determined by the DOC, 

which is exactly what she received—an award of 119 days during her first year 

of participation in the CPCT under the statutes and the DOC’s policy. See 

Fuller, 848 N.E.2d at 1174. Bradford has failed to show that she is entitled to 

additional credit time. 

1

 I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3(d)(9) specifically states that “the amount of educational credit a person may earn under 

this section is an amount determined by the [DOC] under a policy adopted by the [DOC] concerning the 

individualized case management plan, not to exceed the maximum amount described in subsection (j).” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 11 of 13

II. Constitutional Claims

[23] Notwithstanding our conclusion above, Bradford argues that the DOC’s 

implementation of CPCT for those who opted into the program violated her 

due process rights. Bradford further maintains that the Agreement and DOC’s 

policies regarding those offenders who opt in to the CPCT program violate the 

ex post facto clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitutions.2

 

[24] We initially observe that Bradford did not raise any constitutional challenges at 

trial. Thus, we may consider a party’s constitutional claim waived when raised 

for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., B.Z. v. State, 943 N.E.2d 384, 394 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2011) (declining to address the defendant’s state privileges and immunities 

clause challenge to the expungement statute because the issue was raised for the 

first time on appeal). Moreover, Bradford does not make a cogent argument on 

appeal regarding any alleged due process violations. For this additional reason, 

that issue is waived. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (argument must be 

supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities and the record); see 

also Loomis v. Ameritech Corp., 764 N.E.2d 658, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). 

[25] Although Bradford has also waived her ex post facto claim, we note that 

Congress and the State are forbidden from enacting “any law which imposes a 

punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; 

or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.” Ramon v. State, 888 

2 U.S. Const. art I, § 10; Ind. Const. art 1, § 24. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 12 of 13

N.E.2d 244, 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The purpose of the ex post facto clause 

is to give effect to the fundamental principle that persons have a right to fair 

warning of that conduct which will give rise to criminal penalties. Wallace v. 

State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 377 (Ind 2009). For the ex post facto prohibition to be 

violated, the action in question must apply to events occurring before its 

enactment and must disadvantage the prisoner. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 

28 (1981). 

[26] Here, the implementation of CPCT did not change the definition of Bradford’s 

crime or alter her four-year probation revocation sentence. In Budd, no ex post 

facto violation was found because the amendment to the educational credit time 

statute did not increase the defendant’s sentence. 935 N.E.2d at 753. And in 

this case, Bradford’s ability to seek release from prison was enhanced—not 

reduced. 

[27] Indeed, Bradford does not dispute that she received more educational credit 

under CPCT than she would have under the previous structure, i.e., 119 days 

rather than 90 days. As a result, Bradford did not establish that she is adversely 

impacted by the maximum credit award when she opted into CPCT because, as 

discussed above, she did nothing to earn more than the 119 days she was 

awarded. It follows, therefore, that because Bradford has failed to show how 

her constitutional rights were substantially prejudiced, there was no ex post 

facto violation. See, e.g., Ramon, 888 N.E.2d at 253 (holding that no ex post 

facto violation occurred when a revised statute that permitted the State to 

amend a charging information at any time did not prejudice the defendant’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2112 | May 22, 2023 Page 13 of 13

substantive rights, did not create any new crimes, change the elements of any 

crime, or alter the sentencing statutes). For all these reasons, Bradford’s 

constitutional challenges fail. 

[28] Judgment affirmed.

Riley, J. and Pyle, J., concur.