holding that the trial court did not Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 05A02-1410-CR-722 | April 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8 abuse its discretion in reinstating the probationer’s previously suspended sentence
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court did not Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 05A02-1410-CR-722 | April 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8 abuse its discretion in reinstating the probationer’s previously suspended sentence
- stating the trial court’s decision was not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances because “[appellant’s] actions showed a lack of respect for the law and for the opportunities afforded him”
- holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the probationer’s entire previously suspended sentence of one year
- holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the probationer’s previously-suspended sentence of one year
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
When does a cardboard box under a bridge qualify as a. “home address?” A park bench? What about a pile of rags next to a trash bin? Or a homeless shelter where one had a bowl of soup for lunch, but cannot return that night because there is no room?
. Homelessness is not a crime, but my colleagues make it so for anyone who is required to register under Ind.Code § 5-2-12-9 (repealed, see now Ind.Code § 11-8-8-17). While they resolve the evidentia-ry sufficiency issue in this case, they raise the specter of due process concerns in countless others.
My colleagues interpret Ind.Code § 5-2-12-8 to require that a homeless person register every place he sleeps within seven days. The State would apply this requirement to homeless shelters and park benches. Appellee’s Brief, p. 6. Both would apply this requirement even though the person does not reside at the location, has not slept or even been at the location in the preceding six days, and has no plans to return there. A homeless individual who moves about, staying at emergency homeless shelters when space is available and on the streets when it is not, would be required to register retroactively every single day the location where he slept six days earlier even though doing so would not provide any meaningful information 'to anyone or protect the public in any way.
I do not think that this is what our General Assembly intended when it enacted the registry statute, and I respectfully dissent.