Bleeke v. State
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 24
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bleeke appeals a trial court grant of partial summary judgment for the Parole Board and seeks a permanent injunction.
- Parole conditions imposed on Bleeke include additional restrictions for association with minors and proximity to places children gather, under Indiana Form 49108.
- Bleeke challenged the conditions as applied, the governing statutes, and the state’s SOMM program; the federal case previously granted a preliminary injunction regarding his children’s contacts.
- Bleeke moved to Ohio for family reasons; after a preliminary injunction, he was transferred, and the Indiana case proceeded to summary judgment.
- The trial court later granted summary judgment for the Parole Board on most issues; Bleeke appeals those rulings and seeks to invalidate several conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bleeke waived his right to appeal by signing a document with Ohio supervision. | Bleeke did not knowingly waive his rights; no signature or list of conditions attached. | The Ohio document resembled a probation-terms agreement that can waive appeal rights. | Bleeke did not waive his right to appeal. |
| Whether IC 35-42-4-11 and IC 11-13-3-4(g)(2)(D) are properly applied or constitutionally valid. | Bleeke argues the statutes are overbroad and due-process-infringing. | Board argues statutes are rationally related to public safety; Bleeke is classified as a child offender. | 11-13-3-4(g)(2)(D) is overbroad as applied; 35-42-4-11 does not apply to Bleeke’s pre-2006 conduct. |
| Whether the additional parole conditions under IC 11-13-3-4(b) were properly linked to reintegration and not unduly restrictive. | Board failed to show the conditions were reasonably related to reintegration. | Conditions are protective measures for children and within Board authority. | Board exceeded its authority; conditions 4, 5, 17, 19 improperly imposed. |
| Whether other added conditions (8, 15, 17, 19) are impermissibly vague or overbroad. | Conditions 8, 15, 17, 19 lack clear standards. | Broad restrictions are necessary to prevent harm; prior case law supports broader prohibitions. | Condition 8 overbroad; 15, 17, 19 vague. |
| Whether the SOMM program violates Bleeke’s Fifth Amendment rights. | SOMM compels self-incrimination and admission of guilt. | Program does not coerce; guidance from Gilfillen and related cases unclear. | SOMM program violates the Fifth Amendment as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (probation is akin to parole; note on process and terms of probation)
- Gilfillen v. State, 582 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 1991) (due process limits on coercive admission requirements during probation)
- Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (probation conditions must be sufficiently clear to guide conduct)
- McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (clarity standards for terms like 'dating' in conditions)
- Harris v. State (parole conditions), 836 N.E.2d 277 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (due process right to clear conditions in supervised release)
- Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010) (due process protections for offender against children conditions; Meza cited for process requirements)
- Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1989) (two-step due process framework for liberty interests)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1980) (liberty interest arising from classification triggers due process protections)