Summary
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment requiring George Lane to register as a sex offender for life in Indiana. The court held that Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(f) applied because Lane had an ongoing, in-person registration obligation in Kentucky, even after returning to Indiana. The court distinguished the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Peters v. Quakenbush and concluded that Lane had not shown that his Kentucky registration obligations had expired.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(f) requires a person who returned to Indiana after becoming subject to lifetime sex-offender registration in Kentucky to register in Indiana for life when the person still has an ongoing in-person registration obligation in Kentucky.
- Whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the Commissioner and Sheriff.
Holdings
- Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(f) applies because Lane had a current, ongoing, in-person registration obligation in Kentucky, including a requirement to return periodically for a new photograph. Indiana therefore required Lane to register for the longer period required by Kentucky, which was life.
- Summary judgment for the Commissioner and Sheriff was proper because the undisputed evidence established Lane's ongoing Kentucky registration obligation and the resulting application of Indiana's Jurisdiction Statute.
Key quotations
“A person who is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction shall register for the period required by the other jurisdiction or the period described in this section, whichever is longer.” (6)
“That is an ongoing, in-person requirement under Kentucky’s registration laws, and, therefore, Indiana’s Jurisdiction Statute applies to him.” (7)
Factual background
Lane was convicted in Indiana in 2008 of Class C felony child molesting and began a ten-year Indiana sex-offender registration period. He later moved to Kentucky, where his Indiana conviction subjected him to lifetime registration, and he complied with Kentucky's registration requirements. After returning to Indiana, officials informed him that his Kentucky lifetime registration obligation required lifetime registration in Indiana, including an ongoing requirement to appear in person at a Kentucky probation and parole office for periodic photographs. Lane sought declaratory relief, asserting that he was not currently subject to a Kentucky registration obligation.
Procedural history
Lane pleaded guilty in Indiana in 2008 to Class C felony child molesting and initially received a ten-year Indiana registration obligation. After moving to Kentucky, he registered there and became subject to lifetime registration under Kentucky law. When he returned to Indiana, Indiana officials determined that he was subject to lifetime registration under Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(f). The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and the Dearborn Superior Court granted judgment to the Commissioner and Sheriff; the Court of Appeals affirmed.