ILNews

Sex Offender Registration Act not ex post facto as applied to Perry County man

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the denial of a petition to remove a convicted child molester from the sex offender registry, finding the Sex Offender Registration Act is non-punitive as applied to him.

Daniel Hollen was convicted in Knox County in January 2000 of two counts of Class B felony child molesting for offenses that happened between July 4, 1994, and Sept. 30, 1995. In 2012, he filed pro se a “petition to remove registration act, sexual violent predator status and global positioning satellite” in Perry County, where he lived. He argued his classification as a SVP was contrary to the ex post facto clauses of the Indiana and U.S. constitutions and that he’s being retroactively punished by having to register as a SVP for the rest of his life. He believed the Act wasn’t in effect at the time he committed his offenses.

The case was transferred from Perry Circuit Court to Knox Circuit Court, but it was then sent back to Perry County because that is where Hollen resides. The Perry Circuit Court denied the motion.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that many of Hollen’s arguments are scattered and he failed to put forth a cogent argument on most points. The court addressed his argument that the requirement he registers as a SVP constitutes an ex post facto law because, he claims, the offenses were committed before the effective date of the Act.

Because he was found guilty of two counts that took place after July 1, 1994, the date the Act took effect, the judges didn’t find his argument persuasive that the offenses took place prior to the Act’s effective date. They also looked at the amendments enacted through the years to see if they are constitutional as applied to Hollen.

The COA used the “intent-effects” test to analyze whether the effects of applying the regulatory scheme are punitive as to Hollen by considering seven factors outlined in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69, 83 S. Ct. 554, 567-68 (1963). Those include whether the behavior to which the sanction applies is already a crime and whether the sanction appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.

Under the circumstances of Hollen’s case, the court found in Daniel J. Hollen v. State of Indiana, 62A04-1211-MI-636, that the factors weigh in favor of treating the Act as non-punitive as applied to Hollen.

 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT