Andre Gonzalez v. State of Indiana, 980 N.E.2d 312

Gonzalez pleaded guilty in 1997 to Child Solicitation, a class D felony, receiving a 3-year sentence with 18 months imprisonment and 18 months probation.
Upon probation discharge in 1999, he was required to register as a sex offender for ten years under the 1996 Act.
In 2006, Indiana amended the Act to require lifetime registration for certain offenders based on specific crime details.
In 2010, after completing ten years of registration, Gonzalez sought removal from the registry via a verified petition.
The trial court denied, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to review the ex post facto challenge to retroactive lifetime registration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lifetime registration imposed retroactively violates the Indiana Ex Post Facto Clause	Gonzalez argues the 2006 amendments retroactively punish him without review of future dangerousness.	State contends the amendments create a civil regulatory regime and review is not required for ex post facto purposes.	Yes, retroactive lifetime registration violates the Indiana Ex Post Facto Clause.

Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009) (intent-effects test; factors weigh punitive vs non-punitive effects)
Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. 2009) (apply Mendoza-Martinez factors to examine punishment vs regulation)
Harris v. State, 949 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2011) (lifetime registration weighs toward non-punitive when SVP review exists)
Pollard v. State, 908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. 2009) (courts consider non-punitive purpose of registration regime)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (seven Mendoza-Martinez factors for ex post facto analysis)
Wallace v. Rendleman, 603 N.E.2d 1333 (Ind. 1992) (court's standard on rebutting punitive intent)
Hevner v. State, 919 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2010) (confirms intent-effects approach to Indiana ex post facto claims)