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

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