ILNews

Judges reverse man's removal from sex offender list

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in ordering a man’s name removed from the state’s sex offender registry because the court didn’t provide notice to the appropriate parties or hold a hearing before doing so, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Mickey Shawn Gambler wrote a letter to Allen Superior Court in April 2010 to see if he could be removed from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. Gambler was convicted of a sex offense in Ohio in 1995; the act occurred in 1994.

The trial court issued an order taking judicial notice of the letter and directed Gambler to serve the letter to all parties of record. The order, letter, and matter were forwarded to the appropriate Allen County court for a ruling. In May 2010, Allen Superior Judge Frances Gull ordered the Allen County Sheriff’s Department and Indiana Department of Correction to remove Gambler from the registry. Judge Gull ruled due to Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009), Gambler isn’t required to register in Indiana based on the Ohio conviction.

The Court of Appeals reversed in In Re: State of Ohio Conviction Against Mickey Shawn Gambler, No. 02A04-1008-CR-509, because Gambler didn’t follow the required steps under state statute to have his named removed from the registry. A petition, or document purported to be a petition, must be submitted under the penalties of perjury, list each jurisdiction in which the offender has to register, and for each criminal conviction list the offense, court and date of judgment, and whether the offender pleaded guilty or was convicted by trial.

Gambler’s letter was insufficient to raise the issue of whether the trial court would remove him from the registry, so on the face of it, the trial court erred in ruling his letter provided sufficient information to proceed in this matter, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb.

“Further, even if Gambler’s letter was sufficient to constitute a petition under this statute, the trial court must either summarily dismiss it or give notice to several government actors and set the matter for a hearing before proceeding,” she wrote. “Here, the record does not indicate the trial court provided notice to the necessary government actors or held a hearing on the matter. Therefore, on the face of the record, DOC has demonstrated prima facie error in granting Gambler’s petition.”

The judges ordered the trial court to dismiss the case without prejudice subject to further proceedings in the event Gambler files a sufficient petition.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT