Stockert v. State
Decision Date | 22 September 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 76A04–1504–CR–144.,76A04–1504–CR–144. |
Citation | 44 N.E.3d 78 |
Parties | Kile Richard STOCKERT, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David W. Stone IV, Stone Law Office & Legal Research, Anderson, IN, Allen R. Stout, Stout Law Group, P.C., Angola, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Tyler G. Banks, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
[1] 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.
[2] On December 9, 2013, the State charged Stockert with Count I, rape as a class B felony; Counts II–IV, criminal deviate conduct as class B felonies; Counts V–VI, criminal confinement as class D felonies; and Count VII, strangulation as a class D felony. On March 26, 2014, Stockert entered a plea of guilty to Count IV, criminal deviate conduct as a class B felony, and the six remaining charges were dismissed.1 On June 16, 2014, the trial court held a sentencing hearing, at which it entered a judgment of conviction on Count IV, criminal deviate conduct as a class B felony, and sentenced Stockert to six years in the DOC with three years executed and three years suspended with two years of probation. The court noted that Stockert “pled guilty ... to the offense of criminal deviate conduct,” and stated that it was required to Transcript at 14–16.
[3] The trial court's Judgment of Conviction, Sentence and Commitment Order did not mention any reporting requirements applicable to Stockert following the completion of his sentence. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) noted that Stockert was not an offender against children, was not a credit restricted felon, and would be required to register as a sex offender or violent offender for ten years following his release from incarceration. On the day of sentencing, the probation department provided Stockert with a form titled “Special Conditions for Adult Sex Offenders.” Appellant's Appendix at 28. The form contained conditions classifying sex offenders as sexually violent predators, not sexually violent predators, and offenders against children. Condition 2, which “[a]pplies to sex offenders who are NOT sexually violent predators,” was checked on the form. Id. Condition 1, which “[a]pplies only to sexually violent predators,” was not checked. Id.
[4] On December 10, 2014, the DOC sent Stockert a “Notice of Intent to Provide Information to Sex and Violent Offender Registry and Right to Appeal,” which notified him that he was an SVP and would be placed on the Sex and Violent Offender Registry (“Registry”) for life. Stockert appealed his SVP status, and, on January 16, 2015, the DOC denied his appeal.
[5] On February 24, 2015, Stockert filed a petition for declaratory judgment challenging his classification as an SVP and requesting that the court “sustain [ ] its original judgment of conviction ... and direct[ ] the [DOC] to remove designations against [Stockert] as a sexually violent predator, as an offender against children, and the requirement to register as a sex offender for life.” Id. at 20.
[6] On March 12, 2015, the court held a hearing on Stockert's petition for declaratory judgment, and, on March 16, 2015, it denied the petition. The order states in part:
[7] 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:
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.”3
[8] 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 contends that the invited error doctrine should “prevent the [S]tate, through the DOC, from altering the punishment imposed” on him. Appellant's Brief at 7. 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.” Id. at 8. 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. Id. at 9 (quoting Ind.Code § 35–38–1–7.5(d) ). Stockert maintains that the “necessity for the trial judge to determine that a defendant is a sexually violent predator trumps [subsection (b) ].” Id.
[9]...
To continue reading
Request your trial