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 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).
….
Ammons [argues] that [I.C. §§ 11-8-8-5(b)(1) and -19(f), which require sex offenders who are required to register in another jurisdiction to likewise register in Indiana,] 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[ v. State, — N.E.3d —, 2016 WL 756366, at *3 (Ind. Feb. 25, 2016)], 2016 WL 756366 [Ind. Feb. 25, 2016]).
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.