NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it
Plea Bargains: Santabello v New York
Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and relevant news articles. All can be useful in framing arguments for new court actions. (i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform courts.) Or refuting charges, check facts of cases v yours.
Leagle is our main court decision resource.
Find State decisions by the Federal Circuit a State is in.

CAUTION: Decisions are meant to be educational.
For "Personal Life Decisions" consult with a lawyer.

Vida -v- Indiana

5-6-2011 Indiana:

Vida -v- Indiana

Jamie L. Vida appeals from the denial of his verified petition for removal from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry (“the Registry”). Vida asserts, and the State properly concedes, that the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act (“the Act”) as applied to him violates the ex post facto clause of the Indiana Constitution because he committed the sex offenses at issue before the Act became effective. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Vida‟s petition.



Convicted Elkhart rapist doesn't have to register for sex offender list

5-11-2011 Indiana:

GOSHEN -- A convicted Elkhart rapist doesn't have to be registered as a sex offender, an appeals court ruled Friday in overturning a local judge's ruling.

____., should be taken off the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

___ was convicted of rape and criminal deviate conduct in 1995, after the registry took effect in 1994, according to the appeals court's ruling. But the crimes actually happened slightly more than three weeks before the registry became law, the appeals court ruled.

The appeal came after Judge George Biddlecome of Elkhart Superior Court 3 ruled that ___ had to register because "he had not yet even been convicted when the (Registration) Act went into effect," according to the appeals court.

The appeals court judges ruled, however, that "Because ___ committed his sex offenses before the Act became effective, the Act is unconstitutional as applied to him" under the ex-post-facto clauses of the U.S. and Indiana constitutions.

Those clauses prevent governments from passing retroactive laws that increase punishments for crimes that wouldn't have been legal punishments when the crime happened, the three-judge appeals panel said.

Even the Indiana Attorney General's office, which serves as prosecutor in appeals, conceded that the registration law shouldn't apply to ___.

The court of appeals ordered ___'s case sent back to Biddlecome, instructing him to grant ___'s petition for removal from the state's registry. ..Source.. by Justin Leighty

No comments: