Robert Neale v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

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