MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] Christopher Haupt, pro se, appeals the trial courts denial of his petition to be removed from the status as a sexually violent predator (SVP). Haupt maintains that he was eligible to be re-evaluated by psychiatrists and removed from SVP status because at least ten years had passed since the original determination.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Haupt was accused of molesting three children between January 2003, and July 2005. On July 18, 2005, the State charged Haupt with three counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class B felony child molesting, and one count of Class A felony sexual misconduct with a minor.
[4] Thereafter, Haupt entered into a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to one count each of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting, and Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor. In addition to reducing two of the counts, the State dismissed the two other felony counts. The plea agreement further provided that Haupts executed term of incarceration would not exceed fifty years, but in all other respects his sentence would be at the trial courts discretion.
[5] On December 14, 2005, the trial court ordered Haupt to undergo psychiatric evaluations by two physicians. During those evaluations, Haupt told one of the psychiatrists that his conduct did not injure the female victims because “they were happy and living normal lives.” Haupt v. State, No. 18A02-0606-CR-503, slip op. at 4 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2007). Thereafter, on May 5, 2006, Haupt was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of fifty years. Haupt was also found to be an SVP because child molesting was one of the offenses that triggered the registration requirement under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).
1
A panel of this court affirmed Haupts sentence on direct appeal. See Haupt, slip op. at 1. According to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), Haupts earliest release date from incarceration is February 19, 2028.
[6] Haupt subsequently filed three pro se petitions requesting that he no longer be declared an SVP under Indiana Code § 35-38-1-7.5
2
, claiming that it was no longer likely that he would engage in sexual misconduct. Haupt further contended that he is eligible to be evaluated and considered for the removal of his SVP status because at least ten years has passed since the initial SVP finding. The State objected to Haupts petitions, alleging that he is only permitted to file a petition ten years after his release from incarceration. On each occasion, the trial court denied Haupts petition. Haupt now appeals the most recent denial of his petition, dated November 3, 2023.
Discussion and Decision
[7] In addressing Haupts contention that he should be removed from the sex offender registry as an SVP, we note that SORA became effective on July 1, 1994. See Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 374-75 (Ind. 2009). As Haupt committed his offenses after July 1, 1994, SORA properly applies to him.
3
SORA was thereafter amended in 2006 to require certain sex offenders—including those convicted of Class A felony child molesting—to register under SORA with local law enforcement for life. See Ind. Code § 11-8-8-19(b); see also Harris, 949 N.E.2d at 806. As Haupt qualified as an SVP, he was required to register for life under SORA by “operation of law.” See Harris, 949 N.E.2d at 809.
[8] Although Haupt contends that his SVP status and the lifetime registration requirement violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws, the subsequent amendments to SORA apply to Haupt because he was incarcerated at the time and remains so. See id. at 808-09. Furthermore, it has been determined that the automatic designation of offenders as SVPs “by operation of law” is not an ex post facto violation, so long as the offender is permitted to eventually petition the trial court to remove their designations or make their SORA registration obligations less restrictive. See id. at 815.
[9] Here, Haupt has prematurely petitioned for a change in his status as an SVP. In accordance with I.C. § 35-38-1-7.5(g)(2), a defendant who is an SVP by operation of law must wait until ten years have passed following his release from prison to “petition the court to consider whether [he] should no longer be considered [an SVP].”
[10] In sum, Haupt may petition to have his status as an SVP changed ten years after his release from custody. At this juncture, Haupts earliest possible release date is February 19, 2028. Should Haupt file a timely petition for a change in his status as an SVP, the trial court may grant a new hearing and consider new psychiatric evidence, or it may deny the request. See id.; see also Harris, 949 N.E.2d at 815. Because Haupts petition is not timely, we conclude that the trial court properly denied his request for relief.
[11] Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Ind. Code § 11-8-8 et seq. SORA requires sex or violent offenders residing in Indiana to register their principal residences address with local law enforcement. I.C. § 11-8-8-7(a).
2
. In accordance with I.C. § 35-38-1-7.5(a), an SVP is a “person who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the individual likely to repeatedly commit a sex offense ․”
3
. SORA “has been amended multiple times” since its initial enactment. See Lemmon v. Harris, 949 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind. 2011).
Altice, Chief Judge.
Bradford, J. and Felix, J., concur.