Healey v. State
969 N.E.2d 607
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Healey pled guilty to child molesting, a class C felony, in 1995 and received an eight-year sentence that ran consecutively with another county sentence for receiving stolen auto parts.
- In 2009, Healey was charged with failure to register as an offender and pled guilty to a separate prior registering offense, receiving an additional two-year sentence.
- The current case, filed September 22, 2010, charged Healey with three counts of failure to register as an offender and a fourth count alleging a sex offender internet offense for using a social networking site accessible to minors.
- On January 6, 2011, Healey moved to dismiss under an ex post facto theory; the trial court denied, and the case proceeded to bench trial with stipulated exhibits.
- The trial court found Healey guilty on the three failure-to-register counts and the internet offense, sentencing him to a total eight years (concurrent) plus one year for the internet offense.
- Healey appeals, arguing (1) SORA as applied violates ex post facto protections, and (2) the sentence is abusive or inappropriate; the Indiana Court of Appeals affirms and remands with instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORA is ex post facto as applied to Healey. | Healey argues the 1995 amendment to SORA imposes punishment beyond the 1994 version. | State contends the 1995 amendment is a civil regulatory scheme with non-punitive aims. | Ex post facto claim rejected; the 1995 amendment deemed non-punitive as applied. |
| Whether Healey's sentence was improper or an abuse of discretion. | Healey asserts sentencing was inappropriate given circumstances. | State argues sentence within statutory range and properly explained. | Sentence affirmed; court found no abuse of discretion and no inappropriate sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (sex-offender registry nonpunitive regime under Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009) (assesses punitive vs regulatory nature of SORA per Indiana context)
- Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. 2009) (applies Mendoza-Martinez factors to ex post facto analysis of SORA)
- Lemmon v. Harris, 949 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 2011) (discusses intent of SORA amendments and civil/regulatory character)
- State v. Pollard, 908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. 2009) (recognizes legitimate regulatory purpose of SORA)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (framework for determining punitive vs non-punitive sanctions)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requires sentencing statements with proper aggravating/mitigating factors)