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
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
      1. Your article is a good intro the recent amendments to Fed.R.Civ.P. For a much longer - though not necessarily better -- summary, counsel might want to read THE CHIEF UMPIRE IS CHANGING THE STRIKE ZONE, which I co-authored and which was just published in the January issue of THE VERDICT (the monthly publication of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association).

      2. Thank you, John Smith, for pointing out a needed correction. The article has been revised.

      3. The "National institute for Justice" is an agency for the Dept of Justice. That is not the law firm you are talking about in this article. The "institute for justice" is a public interest law firm. http://ij.org/ thanks for interesting article however

      4. I would like to try to find a lawyer as soon possible I've had my money stolen off of my bank card driver pressed charges and I try to get the information they need it and a Social Security board is just give me a hold up a run around for no reason and now it think it might be too late cuz its been over a year I believe and I can't get the right information they need because they keep giving me the runaroundwhat should I do about that

      5. It is wonderful that Indiana DOC is making some truly admirable and positive changes. People with serious mental illness, intellectual disability or developmental disability will benefit from these changes. It will be much better if people can get some help and resources that promote their health and growth than if they suffer alone. If people experience positive growth or healing of their health issues, they may be less likely to do the things that caused them to come to prison in the first place. This will be of benefit for everyone. I am also so happy that Indiana DOC added correctional personnel and mental health staffing. These are tough issues to work with. There should be adequate staffing in prisons so correctional officers and other staff are able to do the kind of work they really want to do-helping people grow and change-rather than just trying to manage chaos. Correctional officers and other staff deserve this. It would be great to see increased mental health services and services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in the community so that fewer people will have to receive help and support in prisons. Community services would like be less expensive, inherently less demeaning and just a whole lot better for everyone.

      ADVERTISEMENT