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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

      2. 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!!!

      3. 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?

      4. 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?

      5. 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.

      ADVERTISEMENT