Case Information
*1 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
A PPELLANT P RO S E A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Robert Neale Gregory F. Zoeller New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Andrea E. Rahman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Robert Neale, December 21, 2016 Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Defendant,
33A05-1605-PL-1211 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kit C. Crane, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No. 33C02-1602-PL-5
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] Robert Neale, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for child molesting, filed
a lawsuit against the State and the Indiana Department of Correction alleging Page 1 of 2 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1605-PL-1211| December 21, 2016 *2 that they had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by taking away credit time, privileges, and visitation in response to his refusal to admit his guilt as part of Indiana’s Sex Offender Management and Monitoring (“SOMM”) program. The trial court dismissed the suit, agreeing with the State that our Supreme Court rejected the same claim in Bleeke v. Lemmon , 6 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. 2014). On appeal, Neale does not even mention that Supreme Court ruling. Instead, he relies on this Court’s earlier holding— in the same case — that “[t]he SOMM program’s requirements violate the Fifth Amendment.” Bleeke v. Lemmon , 982 N.E.2d 1040, 1054 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). But that is the precise holding that our Supreme Court subsequently rejected in its own opinion. See 6 N.E.3d at 940 (“[The SOMM program’s] requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.”). We, of course, are bound by our Supreme Court’s decision in Bleeke , and Neale does not give us a reason to distinguish his case from that case.
[2] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Brown, J., concur. Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1605-PL-1211| December 21, 2016