ILNews

Appeals court looks at revised law on sex-offense status

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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).”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT