Friday, November 09, 2012
Ind. Decisions - "COA: Some out-of-state sex offenders don't have to register"
A Hammond man convicted in 1987 of a sex crime in Illinois is not required to register as a sex offender in Indiana, because his Illinois conviction came before Indiana enacted its sex offender registration law in 1994, the state Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
Jerome Burton, 46, is awaiting trial in Lake County on two felony counts of failure to register as a sex offender. Burton asked the appeals court to dismiss those charges as unconstitutionally retroactive, also known as ex post facto.
In 1987, Burton was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault and sentenced to six years in prison. A 1996 Illinois law required certain sex offenders, including Burton, to register for 10 years.
According to court records, Burton was convicted in Illinois for failing to register in 2003 and 2007, and the 10-year registration requirement was reset.
Indiana prosecutors argued that extension means Burton was required to register in Indiana upon moving to Hammond, under a 2006 law that mandates sex offenders living in Indiana that are required to register in any other state also must register in Indiana.
But in a 3-0 decision, the appeals court ruled Burton cannot be required to register in Indiana because his original 1987 conviction predates Indiana's 1994 sex offender registration law, and the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that requiring pre-1994 Hoosier sex offenders to register is constitutionally prohibited.
The appeals court said Indiana owes no deference to Illinois' registration extensions, and so long as Burton lives in Indiana his rights are protected by the Indiana Constitution's prohibition on retroactive punishment.
"The underlying purpose of the ex post facto clause is to give effect to the fundamental principle that persons have a right to fair warning of the type of conduct that will give rise to criminal penalties," said Senior Judge John Sharpnack.
The appeals court ordered Burton's pending failure to register charges be dismissed, though that decision can still be appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 5 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
In Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc., and Leerae Riggs v. The Estate of Hazel D. Wadsack, deceased, by Ronald J. Wadsack as Personal Rep., and Ronald J. Wadsack, individually, an 8-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc. and its case worker Leerae Riggs (collectively “Amerisafe”) appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amerisafe raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in denying Amerisafe’s motion to dismiss. Concluding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and thus that it erred in denying the motion to dismiss, we reverse. * * *NFP civil opinions today (2):
The Wadsacks argue that the Worker’s Compensation Board (the “Board”) does not have jurisdiction because their claims are not on behalf of Matthew, or based directly on his injuries, but instead are based on the handling of Matthew’s claims. We disagree. The exclusivity provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act, which grants employees rights and remedies under the worker’s compensation system and excludes all other remedies, specifically extends to personal representatives and next of kin. Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6. Further, the exclusivity provision encompasses a bad faith provision of the statute that grants the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an insurance carrier has acted in bad faith or has committed an independent tort in settling claims. Ind. Code § 22-3-4-12.1(a). Thus, the Board’s jurisdiction to hear claims of bad faith extends not only to the injured employee, but to his personal representatives and next of kin. * * *
Concluding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case and that the Wadsacks must take their complaint to the Board, we reverse.
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Ind. Gov't. - Center Twp. small claims court's mandate action now fully briefed and transmitted to Supreme Court
The ILB's most recent entry on this lawsuit, where the Center Twp. Trustee is attempting to move the location of the Center Township of Marion County small claims court, against the wishes of Judge Michelle Smith Scott, who cites security concerns among her objections, was Oct. 4, 2012. This is Case Number: 49 S 00 - 1207 - MF - 00420, IN RE: CENTER TOWNSHIP OF MARION COUNTY SMALL CLAIMS COURT.
The ILB has been able to obtain [several of] the briefs of the parties:
- Aug. 27, 2012 - Brief of Appellants Center Twp. Trustee and Advisory Bd.
- Oct. 1, 2012 - Brief of Appellee Judge Michelle Smith Scott
- Oct. 19, 2012 - Reply Brief of Appellants Center Twp. Trustee and Advisory Bd.
|O.A. NONE ENTERED ON 10/22/12 AB|
|10/22/12||TRANSMITTED SUPREME ***********10/22/12***********|
|ENTERED ON 10/22/12 AB|
|10/23/12||VERIFIED MOTION TO FILE VERIFIED STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO|
|FOOTNOTE 11 IN THE BRIEF OF APPELLEE (6) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE|
|(6) BY MAIL 10/23/12 **ROTUNDA** ENTERED ON 10/24/12 AS|
|10/23/12||****RECEIVED 10/24/12: VERIFIED STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO|
|FOOTNOTE 11 IN THE BRIEF OF APPELLEE. HOLD FOR RULING ON MOTION|
|TO FILE. **ROTUNDA** ENTERED ON 10/24/12 AS|
|11/08/12||ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER:|
|11/08/12||BEING DULY ADVISED, THE MOTION IS GRANTED.|
|THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS DIRECTED TO FILE, AS OF THE DATE OF THIS|
|ORDER, THE "VERIFIED STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO FOOTNOTE 11 IN|
|THE BRIEF OF APPELLEE."|
|BRENT E. DICKSON, CHIEF JUSTICE|
|(ORDER REC'D 11/08/12 AT 1:45 P.M.) ENTERED ON 11/08/12 KJ|
|11/08/12||****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ******|
|11/08/12||VERIFIED STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO FOOTNOTE IN THE BRIEF OF|
|APPELLEE (6) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (6) BY MAIL 10/23/12|
|ENTERED ON 11/08/12 AS|
Ind. Gov't. - "Child support $2.3 billion problem in Indiana"
Kara Kenney of WRTV 6 has posted a long report, with video, that begins:
INDIANAPOLIS - The Call 6 Investigators have uncovered a $2.3 billion problem in Indiana that is using precious local and state resources and draining consumers' wallet.Later in the story, under the heading "Court system strains to keep up with cases":
Hoosier parents owe more than $2.3 billion in child support, according to the Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Support Bureau, which handles 350,000 cases.
Ninety-five percent of cases involve males and 5 percent involve females accused of nonpayment of child support.
State and local agencies spend $83.2 million in state fiscal year 2012 on the child support problem, including finding noncustodial parents, prosecuting cases, establishing child support orders and processing payments.
The Call 6 Investigators found agencies strapped for manpower and others finding it hard to make a dent in the pervasive issue.
Where Indiana struggles most is establishing child support orders, which is when a judge determines how much a noncustodial parent should pay. In that category, Indiana dropped to 41st in 2010.
Prosecutors said getting both parents into court can be difficult.
"If someone doesn't want to be found, it can be impossible to find them," said Marion County Chief Deputy Prosecutor John Owens.
Indiana courts are bursting with child support cases, so lag time is a concern.
"We are incredibly understaffed," Owens said.
Marion County handles more than 71,000 cases with 82 full-time employees, working out to
865 cases per employee.
The Call 6 Investigators also checked with surrounding counties and found all are handling hundreds of child support cases per worker.
"Child support is a huge problem," Owens said. "It impacts not only folks who have kids, but it does impact folks who don't."
Deadbeat parents owe more than $607 million in child support in Marion County alone. Parents line up every morning beginning at 7 a.m., waiting for a walk-in appointment with a prosecutor.