The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded a case today with instructions to re-examine a case about a man’s disputed classification
as a sexually violent predator.
Issuing a five-page opinion in Stuart A. Clampitt v. State of Indiana, No. 54A01-1002-CR-64, the appellate panel remanded the case
to Montgomery Circuit Judge Thomas Milligan and reversed his decision about Clampitt’s motion to remove the SVP status.
Clampitt was convicted of felony sexual misconduct charges in Hendricks and Marion counties in 1996 for a relationship with
a 15-year-old girl. Though he’s still incarcerated on these offenses, Clampitt learned that he’s listed as a “sex
predator” on the state’s online sex offender registry and sought to have his name removed.
The Court of Appeals issued a decision in May that affirmed Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins’ decision denying Clampitt’s
motion to remove his SVP status, but he couldn’t reach a decision about whether the record showed he should have had
that classification. The appellate panel instructed Clampitt to file a petition in Montgomery County, and he did late last
year in compliance with Indiana Code 11-8-8-22 that lawmakers had amended.
But in holding a hearing on the matter, Judge Milligan determined he didn’t have the authority to remove that status
because he hadn’t heard the original criminal case.
Today, the appellate court sent the case back with instructions.
“The procedures set forth in the amended statute allow the trial court, and this court on appeal, to be fully informed
of a sex offender’s circumstances, including the offender’s full criminal history, dates of offenses, and reason
for being required to register,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote. "Further, § I.C. 11-8-8-22(e) allows the trial
court to provide notice of the proceeds to all interested parties and then set a hearing. For these reasons, we direct the
trial court in the county where he filed his amended petition to consider the petition in light of § I.C. 11-8-8-22(e).”














vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.