Vaidik, CJ.
Case Summary
After being ordered to register as a sex offender in Illinois for ten years, Charles Summers moved to Indiana. Summers later registered as a sex offender in Indiana. When Indiana applied its tolling statute to Summers (in order to extend Summers’ registration period by the amount of time he was incarcerated in Indiana for new crimes committed), Summers claimed that applying the statute to him violated Indiana’s prohibition against ex post facto laws. He argued that when he committed his underlying offense in Illinois, Indiana had not yet enacted its tolling statute. Because Summers was under a tolling requirement in Illinois, we find no punitive burden to maintaining that requirement across state lines. Because there is no ex post facto violation, we reverse the trial court and remand this case.
….
Effective July 1, 2006, the Indiana General Assembly amended the Sex Offender Registration Act’s (SORA) definition of sex offender to include “a person who is required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction.” … Then, effective July 1, 2008, the General Assembly amended SORA to provide that the registration period is tolled during any period that a sex offender is incarcerated. …
Summers filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges, arguing that SORA’s tolling provision, as applied to him, violated Indiana’s prohibition against ex post facto laws because Indiana’s tolling provision was enacted three years after his delinquency adjudication in Illinois. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the criminal charges against Summers.
The same day that the criminal charges were dismissed, Summers, pursuant to Indiana Code section 11-8-8-22, filed a petition to remove his name from Indiana’s sex-offender registry …. The State later filed a motion to correct error in the criminal case, and the trial court held a joint hearing on the State’s motion to correct error and Summers’ petition to remove his name from the registry. Following the joint hearing, the court denied the State’s motion to correct error and found that Summers’ name should be removed from the registry. …
….
The fundamental principle to the prohibition against ex post facto laws is that people have a right to fair warning of the criminal penalties that may result from their conduct. Tyson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 88, 92 (Ind. 2016). …
….
…Summers was a sex offender in Illinois; by moving across state lines, Summers merely maintained his sex-offender status. Second, although Indiana adopted its tolling provision several years after Summers was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in Illinois, Summers was already under a tolling requirement in Illinois. There is no punitive burden to maintaining both of these requirements across state lines.7 Because Summers has not established an ex post facto violation, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal charges against Summers in Cause No. F6-233 and reverse the trial court’s grant of Summers’ petition to remove his name from the sex-offender registry in Cause No. MI-70.
Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.