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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT