ILNews

Judges find ex post facto claim waived

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The man who raised a constitutional challenge to the propriety of his conviction of failing to register as a sex offender waived his ex post facto claim when he entered into a plea agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday.

In James E. Rogers v. State of Indiana, No. 84A01-1104-CR-148, James Rogers appealed his conviction of and sentence for Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender, and his sentences for Class D felony theft and receiving stolen property. Rogers was convicted of an offense in Wisconsin in 1991 that required him to register as a sex offender there. When he relocated to Indiana in the mid-1990s, he registered as a sex offender. The last time he updated his address with the sheriff’s office was Nov. 4, 2009.

After he was arrested for theft and later released from jail, the sheriff’s department discovered he did not register within the seven-day time period as required under statute. He entered into a plea agreement for the failure to register, theft and receiving stolen property charges in exchange for the dismissal of four other causes. He was sentenced to three years on each count, with the sentences running consecutively.

On appeal, Rogers argued that his failing to register conviction is an improper ex post facto application of sex offender registration requirements in violation of the Indiana Constitution. The appellate court declined to find that an ex post facto constitutional claim is an exception to the general rule that a defendant may not challenge a conviction pursuant to a guilty plea on direct appeal. Rogers entered into his plea agreement with the state and benefited from the agreement. The record is sparse on the circumstances of when he moved to Indiana and why he registered in Indiana at all, but the judges found his circumstances fall into the broader general rule that a person waives potential claims with respect to the propriety of his conviction on direct appeal when he pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.

The COA also concluded that Rogers’ sentence was appropriate, finding the nature of the offenses does not justify a reduced sentence and that the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the crimes and Rogers’ remorse weren’t mitigating factors.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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