ILNews

Judges affirm defendant must register as sex offender as part of probation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant who was convicted of robbery and rape, but whose rape conviction was vacated on double jeopardy concerns, can still be required to register as a sex offender as a condition of his probation, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Thursday.

Daquan Whitener went to K.A.’s house in the summer 2009 at the request of K.A.’s friend Raquel Pizana to return a CD which belonged to her. Whitener, who was 17 at the time, arrived with two teenaged cousins. K.A. and her friends were drinking alcohol and hanging out, and eventually Whitener and his cousins left. K.A. and Whitener didn’t speak while he was around her, but he knew she was very intoxicated and that she didn’t own a phone.

Later that night, the three boys returned to K.A.’s home. Whitener told his cousins that K.A. told him to break in through a window because she wanted to have sex with him. She was very drunk and tried to push Whitener off during the act. The three boys left and she sought medical help the next day.

Whitener was charged with Class A felony robbery and Class B felony rape and was convicted by a jury. The trial court vacated the rape conviction because of double jeopardy concerns. Whitener was also ordered to register as a sex offender as a condition of his probation.

In Daquan Whitener v. State of Indiana, 20A04-1205-CR-254, the Court of Appeals concluded that the state presented evidence of a probative nature from which a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Whitener’s entry of K.A.’s home was unauthorized, so he was guilty of burglary.

It also upheld the fact that he must register as a sex offender.

“Although Whitener was convicted and sentenced on a count of burglary as a class A felony, which is not an enumerated offense under Ind. Code § 11-8-8-4.5(a) (Supp. 2007), the underlying felony he intended to commit when committing the burglary was rape, which is an enumerated offense,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote. “Moreover, we note that Whitener was found guilty of committing rape as a class B felony by the jury, and the court vacated his conviction based upon double jeopardy principles.

On cross-appeal, the state challenged whether the trial court properly declined to enter a judgment of conviction for rape based on double jeopardy principles. The state’s motion to correct was denied in May 2010 and the state did not appeal. It was only two years later when Whitener pursued a direct appeal pursuant to Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 2(1) that the state elected to raise this issue. Under these circumstances, the cross-appeal issue is untimely, Brown wrote in dismissing the appeal.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Registry
    I was just beginning to have faith in the Indiana Court of Appeals, then I read this crap. Now a person can be required to register as a sex offende even if they are not convicted of a sex crime! If a jury convicts a person of rape and the judge vacates the conviction, it must be held that there was no conviction. Therefore, the person should not be required to register as a sex offender and ordering him to do so is just plain stupid! This is like arresting a person because the cops saw him looking at a jewelry store and assumed he was going to rob it! He said I didn't do anything wrong! They said you looked like you wanted to rob that jewelry store and tha is conspiracy to commit robbery!

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT