¶1dissenting.
¶2I do not disagree that the majority's explanation as to how the credit time for educational achievement program should work is sensible.
¶3Nor do I disagree that the majority's explanation properly interprets the statute as amended by the legislature in 1995.
¶4But I do disagree that the majority has properly read the statute as in effect prior to 1995. I think the statute is properly read to provide that a prisoner who successfully completes a G.E.D. test is entitled to be released six months earlier than would otherwise be the case and a prisoner who completes a bachelor's degree is entitled to be released two years earlier. Ind.Code § 35-50-6-8.3(b)(1) and (4) (1998), subsequently amended by 1995 Acts 148, § 7. As the majority points out, the legislature amended the statute earlier this year to provide that the ered-it time earned for educational achievement is to be deducted from the total sentence, rather than accelerate the release date. 1995 Acts 148, § 7. This change itself demonstrates that the trial courts in these cases were correct in their rulings. An amendment changing a prior statute indicates a legislative intention that the meaning of the prior statute has been changed. Lake County Beverage Co. v. 21st Amendment (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 1008, 1011, trans. denied.
¶5For these reasons, I would affirm the decisions of the trial courts in these two cases.
¶6DeBRULER, J., joins.