Jeremiah Cline v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 351
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cline, convicted in 2002 of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor (two Class C felonies) for sexual acts with a 15-year-old and a 14-year-old.
- The Indiana Sex Offender Act was amended effective July 1, 2001 to require registration for Class C sex offenses; Cline’s crimes predated the change but required registration upon release.
- In 2011, Cline petitioned to remove his designation from the Sex Offender Registry and to expunge his information from the Registry.
- The trial court held that Cline had no ongoing registration obligation due to ex post facto concerns but lacked authority to expunge his existing Registry information.
- On appeal, the majority affirmed the trial court’s ruling; the dissent argued the court had authority to remove erroneous Registry information.
- Key issue is whether the trial court may expunge Cline’s name and information from the Registry under Ind. Code § 11-8-8-22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to remove Cline from the Registry | Cline argues 11-8-8-22(c)–(g) authorize removal. | The majority reads statute to limit relief to future obligations; no expungement provision. | Yes, but court affirmed removal not expungement; no full expungement required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009) (ex post facto concerns with pre-act convictions and registry)
- Pollard v. State, 908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. 2009) (application of registry provisions post-conviction)
- Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. 2009) (retroactive aspects of lifetime registration in certain cases)
- Lemmon v. Harris, 949 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 2011) (applies Jensen to other regime effects)
- Brogan v. State, 925 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (discussion of removal from registry under 11-8-8-22)
- Clampitt v. State, 932 N.E.2d 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (directing consideration of amended petition to remove from registry)
- Myers v. Coats, 966 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting DOC administrative remedies for registry challenges)