Lemmon v. Harris
2011 Ind. LEXIS 566
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Harris pled guilty in 1999 to child molesting (Class B felony) in Indiana; sentenced to 10 years with 10-year registration.
- He was released on parole in 2002, 2005, and 2007, with reincarcerations for parole violations before final release in 2008.
- DOC notified Harris during or around 2007–2008 that he was an SVP with lifetime registration; Harris refused to sign the forms.
- In September 2007 Harris filed suit in the Miami Circuit Court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging SVP status and registration duration.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; bench judgment granted Harris declaratory relief removing SVP status; Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2007 Amendment retroactively designates SVP status by operation of law | Harris: status changed by retroactive operation violates ex post facto rationale | DOC: 2007 Amendment creates SVP by operation of law for qualifying offenses after release | Statutory designation by operation of law applies; no ex post facto violation. |
| Whether applying 2007 Amendment to Harris violates ex post facto under Indiana Constitution | Harris: retroactive lifetime registration is punitive | State: regulatory purpose; seven-factor test shows nonpunitive effects | Overall, effects not punitive; ex post facto claim failed. |
| Whether separation of powers is violated by automatic SVP designation | Harris: DOC reopens final judgments, encroaching judiciary's function | Statute preserves judicial role; designation does not reopen final judgments | No separation-of-powers violation; judiciary retains status-determination role. |
| Whether the 2007 Amendment is consistent with judicial sentencing framework and future review | Harris: status change bypasses court's sentencing role | Statute provides court review mechanisms and individualized determinations after ten years | Consistent with regulatory purpose; courts retain review processes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hevner v. State, 919 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2010) (ex post facto considerations under Indiana law)
- State v. Pollard, 908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind.2009) (ex post facto considerations under Indiana law)
- Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384 (Ind.2009) (ex post facto and SVP status considerations)
- Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind.2009) (ex post facto analysis framework)
- Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind.2008) (SVP determination timing at sentencing; effects of later amendments)
- State v. Bodyke, 133 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 2010) (separation of powers concerns in automatic reclassification)