Judges find ex post facto claim waived

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The man who raised a constitutional challenge to the propriety of his conviction of failing to register as a sex offender waived his ex post facto claim when he entered into a plea agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday.

In James E. Rogers v. State of Indiana, No. 84A01-1104-CR-148, James Rogers appealed his conviction of and sentence for Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender, and his sentences for Class D felony theft and receiving stolen property. Rogers was convicted of an offense in Wisconsin in 1991 that required him to register as a sex offender there. When he relocated to Indiana in the mid-1990s, he registered as a sex offender. The last time he updated his address with the sheriff’s office was Nov. 4, 2009.

After he was arrested for theft and later released from jail, the sheriff’s department discovered he did not register within the seven-day time period as required under statute. He entered into a plea agreement for the failure to register, theft and receiving stolen property charges in exchange for the dismissal of four other causes. He was sentenced to three years on each count, with the sentences running consecutively.

On appeal, Rogers argued that his failing to register conviction is an improper ex post facto application of sex offender registration requirements in violation of the Indiana Constitution. The appellate court declined to find that an ex post facto constitutional claim is an exception to the general rule that a defendant may not challenge a conviction pursuant to a guilty plea on direct appeal. Rogers entered into his plea agreement with the state and benefited from the agreement. The record is sparse on the circumstances of when he moved to Indiana and why he registered in Indiana at all, but the judges found his circumstances fall into the broader general rule that a person waives potential claims with respect to the propriety of his conviction on direct appeal when he pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.

The COA also concluded that Rogers’ sentence was appropriate, finding the nature of the offenses does not justify a reduced sentence and that the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the crimes and Rogers’ remorse weren’t mitigating factors.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.