Ronald G. Becker v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. LEXIS 632
Ind.2013Background
- Ronald Becker was convicted of B-felony criminal deviate conduct in 1998 and released in 2000; he initially registered annually for ten years under the law in effect at his sentencing.
- Indiana law enacted post-sentencing SVP (sexually violent predator) classifications that increased registration frequency and term; Becker’s offense later became an SVP-designating conviction by statute.
- In 2008 Becker petitioned the trial court arguing retroactive application of SVP rules violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; the court ruled for Becker and ordered annual (not 90-day) registration.
- The State (local prosecutor) objected in 2008 but did not appeal; the DOC did not intervene then.
- In 2011 Becker and the State entered an Agreed Order saying Becker’s ten-year registration obligation was complete; after Lemmon v. Harris, the Attorney General (on behalf of the DOC) intervened and the trial court vacated the 2008 Order and Agreed Order, reinstating lifetime 90-day SVP registration.
- The Indiana Supreme Court held the DOC was in privity with the prosecutor (both being “the State”) and thus bound by the unappealed 2008 final judgment; the trial court’s grant of the DOC’s Motion to Correct Error was reversed and the 2011 Agreed Order reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC is bound by 2008 unappealed judgment under res judicata/privity | State (plaintiff) argued the DOC could relitigate SVP status after Lemmon v. Harris and is not bound by prosecutor’s failure to appeal | Becker argued the State (prosecutor) and DOC share the same substantial interest and are in privity, so the unappealed 2008 order is binding | Court held DOC and prosecutor are in privity as “the State”; res judicata bars DOC from relitigating the 2008 final judgment |
| Whether DOC’s 2011 intervention was timely to challenge 2008 Order | DOC argued intervention and Motion to Correct Error could timely overturn the Agreed Order under Harris | Becker argued intervenor must accept prior final judgments and cannot relitigate matters already decided | Court held DOC’s intervention was too late; intervenor is bound by prior final orders, including the 2008 Order |
| Whether Lemmon v. Harris controls substantive Ex Post Facto question | State relied on Lemmon to argue extending Becker’s registration was constitutional | Becker contended Harris was distinguishable and res judicata barred reconsideration | Court found Harris would be controlling on substance but did not reach a contrary result because res judicata/privity prevented relitigation |
| Standard of review for Motion to Correct Error when legal question present | State: trial court’s legal ruling reviewed de novo | Becker: same | Court applied de novo review to legal issue and reversed trial court’s grant of the DOC’s Motion to Correct Error |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) (adequacy of representation for privity depends on substantial interests, not attorney competence)
- Lemmon v. Harris, 949 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 2011) (addressed ex post facto challenge to retroactive SVP registration rules)
- MicroVote Gen. Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (defines privity and when interests are treated as those of real parties)
- Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr, 834 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (discusses res judicata preventing repetitious litigation)
- Mercantile Nat. Bank of Ind. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Pension Fund, 668 N.E.2d 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (intervenor takes case as found and is bound by prior orders)