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 But there's a problem with his argument: Section 4(g) doesn't mention polygraph tests, so his parole couldn't have been revoked based on an impermissible ex post fact application of that section, wrote Judge Mathias.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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT