ILNews

Ankle bracelet excuse fails in court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A sex offender cannot use an ankle monitor as an excuse for failing to update his address on the sex offender registry, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Justin Taylor pleaded guilty to Class C felony child molesting and was released from incarceration in June 2009. At that time, he was told he was required to register with the Sex and Violent Offender Registry in Marion County for 10 years. The registry mandated Taylor provided his current address and update it within three days if he moved.

Taylor was arrested again in May 2011 and convicted of criminal confinement. He was release to home detention on Aug. 29, 2011.

In September, the compliance officer learned Taylor was not living at either of the addresses listed on the sex offender registry. Taylor was subsequently arrested and charged with a Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender.

The trial court found him guilty.

Taylor did not dispute he did not update his registry when he was placed on house arrest, but he claimed he did not knowingly or intentionally fail to register because he was not aware he was required to register. He assumed with an ankle bracelet and other means, the state was closely monitoring him.

In Justin Taylor v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1201-CR-4, the COA found his argument without merit and affirmed Taylor’s his conviction.

The state presented evidence Taylor received notice after his release that he was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years. Also in June 2009 and again in July 2009, he signed the form, which displayed in bold letters “FAILURE TO COMPLY IS A CLASS D FELONY.”

Judge Melissa May wrote, “Taylor’s signature acknowledged he understood that language, and he did comply with the requirements when he first registered as a sex offender. Any argument Taylor offers to the contrary is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BS
    Failure to register should be a misdemeanor that carries a small fine! Class D felony my ass, our lawmakers are idiots tyhjat think the can make any law about anything in clear violation of the constitution!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT