Friedlander, J.
Schaadt initially mounts a constitutional challenge, claiming the savings clause of the 2014 criminal code revision violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, article 1, section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. [Footnote omitted.] Specifically, he observes that under the revised criminal code, his dealing conviction would constitute a Level 5 offense subject to a maximum prison term of six years. See Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-6(b) (West, Westlaw current with all legislation of the 2015 1st Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly effective through February 23, 2015). He argues that the ameliorative sentencing provisions should apply retroactively to defendants who had not yet been convicted and sentenced when the revision took effect on July 1, 2014.
After the commission of Schaadt’s offense but while his case was still pending, an overhaul of our criminal code went into effect pursuant to P.L. 158-2013 and P.L. 68-2014. This revision resulted in, among other things, a drastic reduction of the sentencing ranges for most drug offenses. The General Assembly, however, made it abundantly clear that the new criminal code was not intended to have any effect on criminal proceedings for offenses committed prior its enactment. Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. In this regard, the General Assembly enacted the following specific savings clause:
(a) A SECTION of P.L.158-2013 or P.L.168-2014 does not affect:
(1) penalties incurred;
(2) crimes committed; or
(3) proceedings begun;
before the effective date of that SECTION of P.L.158-2013 or P.L.168-2014. Those penalties, crimes, and proceedings continue and shall be imposed and enforced under prior law as if that SECTION of P.L.158-2013 or P.L.168-2014 had not been enacted.
(b) The general assembly does not intend the doctrine of amelioration
(see Vicory v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. 1980)) to apply to any
SECTION of P.L.158-2013 or P.L.168-2014.
Ind. Code Ann. § 1-1-5.5-21 (West, Westlaw current with all legislation of the2015 1st Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly effective through February 23, 2015).
Schaadt argues that the savings clause unconstitutionally and arbitrarily creates “two classes of drug offenders: those who committed their offenses before the change in law and those who committed their offenses after the change in law.” Appellant’s Brief at 4. We find nothing arbitrary about the savings clause.
The Indiana Constitution provides that the “General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Ind. Const. art. 1, § 23. Our courts have consistently held that “a change in penal statutes which applies only to those who commit their crimes after its effective date does not violate one’s equal protection rights.” Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ind. 1999). See also State v. Alcorn, 638 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. 1994); Vicory v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. 1980); Rivera v. State, 385 N.E.2d 455 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). This is so because the “the time of a crime is selected as an act of free will by the offender.” Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d at 513 (quoting State v. Alcorn, 638 N.E.2d at 1245). The offender, not the State, chooses which statute applies. Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506. Schaadt has no viable equal privileges and immunities claim. See id.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.