MCPHEARSON v. STATE (2020)

OPINION ON REHEARING

[1] Trent McPhearson and the State have filed this joint petition for rehearing, which we grant because McPhearson's case is now effectively moot.

[2] Shortly after this Court handed down its opinion affirming the trial court's denial of McPhearson's petition for removal from Indiana's Sex and Violent Offender Registry, McPhearson v. State, Cause No. 19A-MI-3035, 2020 WL 1808191 (Ind. Ct. App. April 9, 2020), the State sua sponte removed McPhearson from the registry. In their joint petition, McPhearson and the State argue that the State's original analysis of the sex offender registration amendments was incorrect. Specifically, McPhearson and the State contend that other litigation pending in our sister federal courts, coupled with a careful examination of Indiana's prohibition against ex post facto laws, has prompted the State to reevaluate its approach to these types of cases.

[3] But because McPhearson has been removed from the registry, we decline to extrapolate on these proffered arguments. Instead, we find that McPhearson's case is moot because McPhearson has now received the relief he initially sought.

[4] Thus, we grant the parties' joint petition for rehearing and, consequently, vacate our original opinion in this matter.

Baker, Judge.

Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.