# Lemmon v. Harris

> Indiana Supreme Court · June 28, 2011 · 949 N.E.2d 803

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504902

## Case

- **Full name:** Bruce LEMMON, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, Appellant (Respondent Below), v. Michael L. HARRIS, Appellee (Petitioner Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 28, 2011
- **Citations:** 949 N.E.2d 803; 2011 Ind. LEXIS 566; 2011 WL 2552600
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dickson
- **Judges:** Sullivan, Shepard, Rucker, David, Dickson
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504902

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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 sente…
- 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 prohibiti…
- 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"
- holding that the SVP determination need not be made by a trial court at sentencing and the DOC does not violate the separation of powers provision of the Indiana Constitution when it classifies an offender as a SVP

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504902. Public record. Not legal advice.