Robert Neale v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 21, 2016
• Docket: 33A05-1605-PL-1211
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 21 2016, 7:27 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert Neale Gregory F. Zoeller New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Andrea E. Rahman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Neale, December 21, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 33A05-1605-PL-1211 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kit C. Crane, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C02-1602-PL-5

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Robert Neale, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for child molesting, filed

a lawsuit against the State and the Indiana Department of Correction alleging

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1605-PL-1211| December 21, 2016 Page 1 of 2 that they had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by

taking away credit time, privileges, and visitation in response to his refusal to

admit his guilt as part of Indiana’s Sex Offender Management and Monitoring

(“SOMM”) program. The trial court dismissed the suit, agreeing with the State

that our Supreme Court rejected the same claim in Bleeke v. Lemmon, 6 N.E.3d

907 (Ind. 2014). On appeal, Neale does not even mention that Supreme Court

ruling. Instead, he relies on this Court’s earlier holding—in the same case—

that “[t]he SOMM program’s requirements violate the Fifth Amendment.”

Bleeke v. Lemmon, 982 N.E.2d 1040, 1054 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). But that is the

precise holding that our Supreme Court subsequently rejected in its own

opinion. See 6 N.E.3d at 940 (“[The SOMM program’s] requirements do not

violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.”). We, of

course, are bound by our Supreme Court’s decision in Bleeke, and Neale does

not give us a reason to distinguish his case from that case.

[2] Affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1605-PL-1211| December 21, 2016 Page 2 of 2