Clinton Bryan Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
29A02-1607-CR-1620
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- On November 7, 2014, Clinton B. Davis and others entered the home of a 15-year-old (K.F. II) to collect a $5 debt; Davis and his brother assaulted and confined the youth, who suffered facial injuries.
- The State charged Davis with multiple felonies; a jury convicted him only of criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury (Level 5 felony).
- Davis was sentenced to five years (two years executed in DOC, one year Community Corrections, two years suspended to probation).
- After conviction, Davis discovered that conviction of criminal confinement of a minor triggers Indiana’s Sex or Violent Offender Registration Act (SORA) and requires registration.
- Davis filed a belated notice of appeal and challenged, for the first time on appeal, the constitutionality of SORA as applied to him, arguing due process violation because his offense lacked a sexual element.
- The trial court’s judgment and SORA classification were reviewed by the Court of Appeals, which considered whether requiring registration bore a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring Davis to register under SORA violates due process | State: SORA is constitutional; classification as a sex or violent offender is proper and serves public safety | Davis: Criminal confinement can lack sexual element; labeling him a sex offender for a non-sexual violent offense is not rationally related to protecting the public from sex predators | Court: SORA is constitutional as applied; Davis’s offense is properly treated as violent, registration is rationally related to public protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Marlett v. State, 878 N.E.2d 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (upholding SORA classification for criminal confinement of a minor and applying rational-basis review)
- Gibson v. Indiana Department of Correction, 899 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (presumption of statute validity and heavy burden on challenger)
- Teer v. State, 738 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (explaining substantive due process and rational-basis standard)