stating that the legislature had changed the statute from requiring the court to determine sexually violent predator status at the sentencing hearing to the automatic designation of sexually violent predator status and that at the time the defendant was released from prison in December 2007, the sentencing court was no longer required to have determined a person’s status as a sexually violent predator
How later courts described this case
- stating that the legislature had changed the statute from requiring the court to determine sexually violent predator status at the sentencing hearing to the automatic designation of sexually violent predator status and that at the time the defendant was released from prison in December 2007, the sentencing court was no longer required to have determined a person’s status as a sexually violent predator
- stating “under the 2007 Amendment, the Legislature had changed the Act from requiring the court to determine SVP status at the sentencing hearing to the ‘automatic designation of SVP status,’ ” and that “[a]t the time Harris was released from prison in December 2007, the sentencing court was no longer required to have ‘determined’ a person’s SVP status”
- finding the seventh factor non-punitive due to availability of individualized review of SVP status under Ind.Code § 35-38-l-7.5(g) and holding that the de fendant’s status as an SVP had changed by-operation of law and that the Act as applied did not violate Indiana’s prohibition on ex post facto laws
- holding that defendant's requirement, pursuant to an amended statute, that he register as a sexually violent predator was not excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned because the law advanced the "legitimate regulatory purpose of public safety"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*816 DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In accord with the dissent in Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384, 396-98 (Ind.2009) (Boehm, J., dissenting), I believe that the defendant’s reclassification and the resulting enhanced requirements under the 2007 Amendment constitute additional punishments that violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Indiana Constitution when applied to this defendant, who was sentenced in 1999.