Court Opinion

ID: 9542199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:31:51.253263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:01.481511
License: Public Domain

*1292BARNES, Judge,
concurring in result.
I respectfully concur in result. I agree that the trial court properly denied Brogan's motion and that Brogan should be required to refile his claim pursuant to the newly amended Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22. I only concur in result, however, due to the majority's holding that "Brogan is entitled to have his name removed from any sex offender registry which has resulted from his 1994 convictions in Noble County." Slip Op. p. 11. It may be true that Brogan is entitled to have his name removed from the sex offender registry. That determination, however, should be made by the trial court if Brogan refiles his motion pursuant to Indiana Code Seetion 11-88-22. The procedures set out in the amended statute allow the trial court, and this court on appeal, to be fully informed of a sex offender's cireamstances, including the offender's full criminal history, dates of offenses, and reason for being required to register. All interested parties are given notice of the proceedings. I think it is premature at this time to hold that Brogan is entitled to have his name removed from the sex offender registry. For this reason, I concur in result.