ILNews

COA: Parole revocation not unconstitutional

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the decision to revoke a defendant's parole because he refused to take a polygraph test wasn't based on an impermissible ex post facto application of state statute.

In Charles Receveur v. Edwin Buss, et al., No. 33A04-0907-CV-394, Charles Receveur filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming he was being illegally detained and that he should be released from incarceration because his parole had been unlawfully revoked. He claimed his parole revocation was based on a constitutionally impermissible ex post facto law.

Receveur was sent to prison in 1993 and was released on parole in 2008. He signed and initialed a document on parole stipulations for sex offenders. One of the conditions required him to participate in periodic polygraph testing, but Receveur never took one. As a result of his failure to comply with parole stipulations, he was re-incarcerated and assessed the balance of his sentence.

The trial court twice denied Receveur's request for release.

Receveur should have filed a petition for post-conviction relief instead of a writ of habeas corpus, the Court of Appeals noted. Receveur didn't claim he was entitled to be released because his sentence fully expired, but that his parole was improperly revoked. As such, his petition should have been treated as one for post-conviction relief, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

"But regardless of how his petition was styled, we agree with the trial court that the underlying ex post facto claim in Receveur's petition is meritless," he noted.

Receveur claimed the parole stipulations he signed are authorized or required by Indiana Code Section 11-13-3-4(g), which was passed after Receveur had committed his crimes and been convicted. But there's a problem with his argument: Section 4(g) doesn't mention polygraph tests, so his parole couldn't have been revoked based on an impermissible ex post fact application of that section, wrote Judge Mathias.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT