BARNES, J.
In 1995, the State charged Wiggins with several offenses. On January 6, 1996, a jury found Wiggins guilty of attempted murder as a Class A felony, rape as a Class A felony, criminal deviate conduct as a Class A felony, robbery as a Class A felony, and confinement as a Class B felony. . . . .
On November 19, 2009, Wiggins, who is still incarcerated, filed a pro se motion to remove his status as a sexually violent predator on the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. Wiggins alleged that the Department of Correction (“DOC”) had classified him as a sexually violent predator and that the trial court did not make the sexually violent predator determination by consulting with a board of experts. According to Wiggins, he is being retroactively punished, he did not receive a hearing to determine whether he posed a future danger, and his status as a sexually violent predator could only be made by the trial court at the original sentencing hearing. On November 24, 2009, the trial court denied Wiggins’s motion. Wiggins now appeals.
. . . .
Since Wallace and Jensen, the proper method for challenging a person’s status as a sex offender has been the subject of much confusion. The State argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Wiggins’s motion. According to the State, Wiggins’s motion should have been presented in a post-conviction proceeding. The State concedes that, in the end, Wallace and/or Jensen may or may not apply to Wiggins. What is patently clear is that we simply do not have enough information to make a determination as to whether Wiggins should be required to continue registering as a sexual violent predator.
Our research reveals that the 2010 session of the Indiana General Assembly enacted an amended statute that was effective March 24, 2010, and provides guidance on the appropriate procedures for challenging a person’s status as a sex offender. [The opinion then quotes Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22 as amended effective March 24, 2010.] . . . .
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’ circumstances, including the offender’s full criminal history, dates of offenses, and reason for being required to register. Further, all interested parties are given notice of the proceedings. For these reasons, we direct Wiggins to file a petition in the proper county pursuant to the amended Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22.
BAILEY, J., and MAY, J., concur.