{"id":1114,"date":"2018-12-19T14:01:18","date_gmt":"2018-12-19T20:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1114"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:10:18","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:10:18","slug":"healey-v-carter-et-al-ind-ct-app-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/12\/19\/healey-v-carter-et-al-ind-ct-app-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Healey v. Carter et al. (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Healey v. Carter et al., 109 N.E.3d 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant pleaded guilty to criminal confinement, but did not plead to the age of the victim who was a minor. DOC required appellant to register as sex offender, and appellant brought declaratory action alleging that requiring him to register violated rule announced by Supreme Court in Apprendi<\/em>, amongst other claims. Trial court dismissed action.
\n
\nHolding:\u00a0<\/strong> Indiana Court of Appeals held that, the fact that the judiciary retained jurisdiction to review actions of DOC notwithstanding, DOC’s requirement that Appellant register as a sex offender did not violate Apprendi<\/em> nor was otherwise unconstitutional or unlawful. The Court characterized registration as a collateral consequence as opposed to a punishment and therefore did not violate right to trial by jury, DOC was within its discretion to order registration, and registration was not precluded by plea agreement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n