Sexually violent predator petitions must be refiled

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The status as a sexually violent predator for two inmates stands for now, but the Indiana Court of Appeals directed the men to refile their motions to remove that status pursuant to the recently amended statute dealing with this issue.

In Stuart A. Clampitt v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0912-CR-686, and Spencer R. Wiggins v. State of Indiana, No. 45A03-0912-CR-613, the appellate judges were unable to address the inmates’ claims because of a lack of an established record. Both Stewart Clampitt and Spencer Wiggins, inmates in the New Castle Correctional Facility, appealed the denial of their motions to remove their statuses as sexually violent predators.

Clampitt was convicted in 1996 of felony child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor. Clampitt discovered he was listed as a sexually violent predator in Marion County and believed the application of the current SVP status is an ex post facto law.

Wiggins was convicted in 1996 of felony attempted murder, rape, criminal deviate conduct, robbery, and confinement. He argued the trial court failed to make the determination before consulting with a board of experts and that he is being punished retroactively.

In both opinions, the Court of Appeals outlined Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22, which was amended during the 2010 Indiana General Assembly and provides guidance on the proper procedures for challenging status as a sex offender. In both cases, the appellate court directed the men to refile their challenges in the proper county pursuant to Indiana Code. The men need to file their motions in the counties in which they reside instead of where the original action occurred.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit