Background

• Richard Dobeski, a convicted sex offender, was released from New Castle Correctional Facility on July 16, 2015 and was statutorily required to register within seven days under I.C. § 11-8-8-7(g).
• Transportation records showed a van carrying Dobeski arrived in Indianapolis at 11:15 a.m. on July 16, but did not identify when Dobeski personally was free to go.
• A Marion County sergeant checked the registry on July 23 and found Dobeski unregistered; a deputy arrested Dobeski at the Indianapolis Public Library between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. that day for failure to register.
• The State argued the seven-day period meant either (a) seven calendar days including the release date or (b) 168 hours from the precise moment of release (11:15 a.m.), making the arrest timely under the latter theory.
• Dobeski argued Trial Rule 6(A) computation applied (exclude day of release and count seven succeeding calendar days), so he had until the end of July 23 to register and his arrest was premature.
• The trial court accepted the State’s 168-hour theory; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the T.R. 6(A) method applies and Dobeski’s conviction lacked sufficient evidence.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 2010) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; look to statutory text for legislative intent)
• Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (evidence-sufficiency review limits appellate courts to evidence supporting the conviction)
• Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
• Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. 2009) (rule of lenity requires resolving penal-statutory ambiguities for the accused)
• Kirkpatrick v. King, 91 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. 1950) (a "day" is conventionally a calendar day running midnight to midnight)
• Ward v. Indiana Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (applying Trial Rule 6(A) to compute time limits in criminal contexts)