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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT