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. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

      2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

      3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

      4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

      5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

      ADVERTISEMENT