Court Opinion

ID: 9735549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:23:11.832808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:59.867167
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(April 2, 1997)
CHEZEM, Judge.
On December 18, 1996, this court published Blackmon v. Duckworth, 675 N.E.2d 349 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). In that decision, the majority stated:
Whether the State Reformatory maintains separate confidential files is another issue with which we will not interfere. However, to the extent that these separate confidential files contain reference to the charge or the incident leading to the charge, and negatively impact Blackmon’s rights, these files are in contravention of the purpose of Ind.Code ll-ll-5-5(a)(10) and in contravention of the legislature’s intent in enacting that piece of legislation.
Id. at 352-53. In an opinion concurring in the result, this judge wrote that the DOC’s own separate records are not covered under the relevant statute. Id. at 353. Thereafter, Duckworth filed a timely petition for rehearing.
Today, we grant Duckworth’s petition for rehearing to clarify: (1) that Ind.Code § 11-ll-5-5(a)(10) requires the DOC to expunge any reference to the charge from Blackmon’s record; and (2) that the statute does not require the DOC to expunge from its own separate records (as well as from the records of other inmates) all references to the charge itself or to the incident leading to the charge. We recognize that this type of information is vital for security and placement purposes. Forcing the DOC to delete all references to such activity from its own records would make institutional administration nearly impossible. Our opinion on rehearing specifically acknowledges the discretion afforded to correctional officials in dealing with issues of prison administration.
STATON, J., would grant petition for rehearing.
RILEY, J., would deny petition for rehearing.