Title: Ammons v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 45S03-1604-CR-167
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: April 5, 2016

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Kristin A. Mulholland 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller  
Crown Point, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kyle Hunter 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 45S03-1604-CR-167 
 
KEVIN ALLYN AMMONS,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,    
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below).  
 
 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, No. 45G03-8811-CF-217   
The Honorable Diane Ross Boswell, Judge  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A03-1411-CR-394 
_________________________________ 
 
April 5, 2016 
 
Per Curiam. 
Kevin Ammons committed child molesting in Indiana in 1988 and was convicted in 
1989, before passage of any part of Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry Act (the “Act” or “SORA”).  
Ammons was released in 2006 and completed parole in 2007.  Ammons registered as a sex 
offender as the law at the time required of him.  In 2009, Ammons moved to Iowa, where he was 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Apr 05 2016, 3:48 pm
 
 
also required to register as a sex offender.  In 2013, Ammons moved back to Indiana and in 2014 
the State notified him he was required to register as a sex offender.  Ammons sought removal 
from the registry, and the trial court ultimately denied his motion.  Ammons appealed, and a 
divided Court of Appeals affirmed.  Ammons v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1079 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).    
 
In the Court of Appeals, Ammons argued that because he committed his offense six years 
prior to the passage of SORA, application of the Act to him violates the Ex Post Facto Clause—
Article 1, section 24—of the Indiana Constitution.  Ammons relied on our opinion in Wallace v. 
State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009).  In Wallace,  
we found our . . . Act violated Indiana’s Ex Post Facto Clause because it imposed 
a punitive burden as applied to an offender who committed his crime—and even 
served his sentence—before any registration requirement existed.   
 
Tyson v. State, --- N.E.3d ---, 2016 WL 756366, at *3 (Ind. Feb. 25, 2016) (citing Wallace, 905 
N.E.2d at 384) (emphasis in Tyson, footnotes omitted). 
 
 
 
In response to Ammons’ argument, the State contended there is no ex post facto violation 
here because SORA is not being applied retroactively to Ammons, but rather, “the State is 
targeting Ammons’ conduct taken after [SORA]’s enactment.”  Appellee’s Br. at 4.  The State 
argued that because Ammons moved to Iowa in 2009 after our decision in Wallace was handed 
down, he could not benefit from that decision because he was living in Iowa.  And it is 
undisputed that in Iowa, Ammons was subject to a registration requirement.  According to the 
State, when Ammons moved back to Indiana in 2013, he had notice of and therefore “voluntarily 
assented to Indiana law in effect in 2013.”  Id. at 6.  In 2013, Indiana law required (as it does 
today) that offenders who are under a registration obligation in another state must register when 
they move to Indiana.  See Ind. Code § 11-8-8-5(b)(1) (2012 Supp.) (defining a “sex or violent 
offender” as “a person who is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any 
jurisdiction”); I.C. § 11-8-8-19(f) (2012 Supp.) (“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.”). 
 
 
 
 
 
Ammons responded that these statutes constitute an ex post facto violation because they 
were enacted after the date of his crime.  The Court of Appeals agreed on that point. 36 N.E.3d at 
1082.  But after the Court of Appeals decided Ammons’ case, this Court rejected the same 
argument.  In State v. Zerbe we held statutes requiring an Indiana resident to register were non-
punitive in intent and effects when applied to an offender already required to register in another 
jurisdiction.  --- N.E.3d at ---, 2016 WL 756368, at *2 (Ind. Feb. 25, 2016) (citing Tyson, 2016 
WL 756366).   
 
 
Because Ammons was already under an obligation to register, and Indiana Code sections 
11-8-8-5(b)(1) and -19(f) do not impose any additional punishment on him, we find no ex post 
facto violation.  Accordingly, we grant transfer, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals’ opinion, 
Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A), and affirm the trial court on those grounds. 
 
  
         
All Justices concur.