Kile Richard Stockert (“Stockert”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for declaratory judgment seeking to overturn the Department of Correction (“DOC”) designation that he is a sexually violent predator and offender against children (“SVP”). He raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court erred in denying his petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm.
….
The issue is whether the court erred in denying Stockert’s petition for declaratory judgment. At the time of the hearing, Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.5(b)(1) provided in relevant part:
(b) A person who:
(1) being at least eighteen (18) years of age, commits an offense described in:
(B) IC 35-42-4-2 (before its repeal on July 1, 2014);
* * * * *
is a sexually violent predator. […]
(d) At the sentencing hearing, the court shall indicate on the record whether the person has been convicted of an offense that makes the person a sexually violent predator under subsection (b).
* * * * *
(f) If a person is a sexually violent predator:
(1) the person is required to register with the local law enforcement authority as provided in IC 11-8-8; and
(2) the court shall send notice to the department of correction. […]
Ind. Code § 11-8-8-19(b) provided that “[a] sex or violent offender who is a sexually violent predator is required to register for life.” [Footnote omitted.]
….
Stockert argues that the State’s failure to object to the statements in his PSI and special probation conditions, which indicated that he was a sex offender rather than an SVP, amounts to invited error. … He also contends that res judicata should bind the DOC to “the determinations made by the trial court that Stockert was not a sexually violent predator . . . since any error was invited by the prosecutor in not objecting to such determination at the sentencing hearing.” He states that Ind. Code 35-38-1-7.5(d) requires a trial court, at sentencing, to “indicate on the record whether the person has been convicted of an offense that makes the person a sexually violent predator under subsection (b),” and that the trial court made no such finding at the sentencing hearing. Stockert maintains that the “necessity for the trial judge to determine that a defendant is a sexually violent predator trumps [subsection (b)].”
The State’s position is that Stockert is an SVP by operation of law and that “neither the trial judge, nor the probation department has the authority to make an SVP determination.” It contends that, even if the trial court prescribed a ten-year registration requirement, the sentence would have to be vacated due to its illegality, that the sentencing order’s silence regarding Stockert’s registration did not provide it with an adverse ruling from which it could object, and that the State was not a party to Stockert’s probation, which shows that the invited error doctrine does not apply.
….
By virtue of his 2014 conviction for criminal deviate conduct as a class B felony, Stockert is an SVP by operation of law under Ind. Code 35-38-1-7.5(b) and is required to register for life. See Ind. Code § 11-8-8-19(b) (“[a] sex or violent offender who is a sexually violent predator is required to register for life”). The length of Stockert’s required reporting period is determined by the applicable statutes and not by the trial court or the DOC.
Based on the record and Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.5(b) and § 11-8-8-19(b), we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Stockert’s petition for declaratory judgment. [Citation omitted.]
Riley, J., and Altice, J. concur.