ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT