ILNews

Sex offender may file to take name off registry

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined a convicted sex offender may petition to remove his name from the registry, but he filed his petition in the wrong court.

In Glenn E. Brogan v. State of Indiana, No. 57A04-0910-CR-592, Glenn Brogan appealed the denial of his motion by Noble Superior Court to remove his name from the state’s sex offender registry. Brogan was convicted in late 1994 of two counts of child molestation in the county. At the time of his conviction, he wasn’t required to register as a sex offender. When he filed his motion in 2009 in Noble County to remove his name, he was incarcerated in the New Castle Correctional Facility for failing to register in Huntington County in 2008.

The Noble Superior Court denied his motion because it ruled it didn’t have authority or jurisdiction to remove his name.

The appellate court had to navigate the law following the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009), and recently enacted legislation entailing how a registered sex offender may remove his or her name from the registry to determine in what forum Brogan should seek relief under Wallace.

The COA judges determined Brogan appropriately presented his request to be removed from the sex offender registry in his motion. Under a recent provision to Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22, a sex offender can petition to have his name removed from the registry and the provision was made applicable in 2007 if there has been a change in federal or state law after June 30, 2007. The judges deemed Wallace such a change in law; they also noted the 2010 amendment to the statute authorizing an offender to raise an ex post facto claim.

The appellate court agreed that Noble Superior Court wasn’t the proper forum for granting Brogan relief. Under the 2010 legislation, the General Assembly dictated that the petition should be filed where the offender lives, spends the most time, works, or attends school. Only if none of those apply should the petition be filed in the county where the offender was originally convicted. Brogan should file in the county in which he resides.

“One thing is patently clear from the Wallace decision. Brogan is entitled to have his name removed from any sex offender registry which has resulted from his 1994 convictions in Noble County,” wrote Senior Judge Patrick Sullivan.

Judge Michael Barnes agreed with his colleagues in a separate opinion that Brogan needs to refile his petition in a different county.

“That determination, however, should be made by the trial court if Brogan refiles his motion pursuant to Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22,” wrote Judge Barnes. “I think it is premature at this time to hold that Brogan is entitled to have his name removed from the sex offender registry.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • registry
    I am a paralegal in Indiana. I have been working with a good friend of mine who was convicted in 2008 of a class c felony sex offense. He was sentenced to 8 yrs. & 10 yrs. On registry. Upon release in Indiana, different county than conviction he was on 10 yr. registry. When he moved back to county of conviction in Indiana, he was placed on lifetime registry. If we cannot challenge registry, we will challenge constitutionality of conviction. State cannot have their cake and eat it too.
  • REMOVE NAME
    MY SON MADE A STUPID MISTAKE WHEN HE WAS 17 YRS. OLD AND HAS BEEN CONVICTED TEN OR MORE YEARS AGO. HIS NAME IS ON SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRY. HE HAS BEEN DEPORTED 3 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF HIS CRIME. HE HAS NOW A FAMILY WITH 5 CHILDRENS AND A GOOD AND DESCENT JOB TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY. HE NOW IS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS NAME ON THE SEX OFFENDERS THAT MAY CAUSE HIS JOB. IN WHAT WAY THAT HE CAN REMOVE HIS NAME.
  • getting off the registry
    how does a person get off the registry. when i was convicted i was ordered to registor for ten years and then right before i was supposed to stop i was told that i had to register for life.
    • Spouse
      In doing research to get my husband off the registry I have been going thru the ACLU. They did advise us that once we got releaf that if we left the state that he would be bound the federal SORNA act and have to register again. Best bet move back to Indiana and live your life. So as much as I hate to say it Iowa is correct in the ruling dont mean anything to them.
    • Still Persercuted
      I recently had my name removed from the registry by a Indiana Judge early this year also; however Iowa, the state I moved to informed me that the Indiana Juges' Order(the convicting state)means nothing here and that I must still register for life!! Can I get some feed back on how to proceed and make them pay?!!!

      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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

      2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

      3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

      4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

      5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

      ADVERTISEMENT