COA finds 2007 version of statute is an ex post facto law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed in part a man’s petition for post-conviction relief challenging the finding that he is ineligible to petition for a change of status regarding being a sexually violent predator. The 2007 version of the applicable statute is an unconstitutional ex post facto law as applied to him.

In Michael R. Flanders v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-1009-PC-1019, Michael Flanders was convicted of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor in April 2007 stemming from an incident with a neighbor in 2005. Flanders also had a previous Class C felony child molesting conviction, so he was also charged with and convicted of being a repeat sex offender. At the time of his conviction, he was not classified as a sexually violent predator, but later the Indiana Department of Correction classified him as one.

On appeal of his denial for post-conviction relief, Flanders claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and challenged his reclassification by the DOC, which subjects him to more burdensome registration and reporting requirements.

Focusing on the 2007 amendments to Indiana Code 35-38-1-7.5, which clarified that certain convictions qualify someone as a SVP “by operation of law” and disallowed someone with two unrelated convictions for sex offenses to petition for removal of the SVP designation, the judges found the amendments to the registration statutes to be unconstitutional ex post facto laws as applied to Flanders.

His case is distinguishable from Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384, 389 (Ind. 2009), and Lemmon v. Harris, 949 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 2011), because under the court-adopted seven-factor test, No. 7 – whether the sanction is excessive in relation to the alternative purpose – is punitive in regards to Flanders because he can’t petition the court to change his status due to the fact he has two unrelated convictions for sex offenses, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

The judges rejected the state’s claim that Flanders’ relief should be denied because he didn’t comply with I.C. 11-8-8-22 regarding removing a person’s offender designation or requiring the person to register under less restrictive conditions. They also rejected Flanders’ argument that his SVP designation should be reversed because of the ex post facto violation.

“The problematic provision is Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-7.5(g), which made offenders with two or more unrelated convictions for sex offenses ineligible to petition the court for a change in status. Flanders can be placed in the same position as offenders like Harris and Jensen by reinstating his right to petition the court for removal of his SVP status after ten years,” wrote the judge.

The COA also upheld the finding that he did not receive ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel.


    How does the COA know counsel wasn't ineffective? Were they there? I think not!

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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.