MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 04 2019, 9:06 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cleverly Lockhart Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Cleverly Lockhart, December 4, 2019
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1839
v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas R. Lett,
Appellee-Respondent Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34C01-9406-CF-40
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1839 | December 4, 2019 Page 1 of 3
[1] Cleverly Lockhart appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for
clarification of his sentence and registry status, arguing that the trial court erred.
Finding this issue not yet ripe for appellate review, we vacate the trial court’s
judgment as premature and dismiss this appeal.
[2] On July 27, 1995, Lockhart was convicted of three counts of Class B felony
child molestation and one count of Class C felony child molestation. This Court
later affirmed Lockhart’s convictions but remanded with instructions for the
trial court to impose a statutorily-authorized sentence. See Lockhart v. State, 671
N.E.2d 893, 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). The trial court then re-sentenced
Lockhart to an aggregate fifty-three-year term on April 16, 1998. Lockhart’s
earliest possible release date is February 29, 2020.
[3] Nearly ten years later, Lockhart petitioned for and was denied post-conviction
relief, which this Court affirmed on November 10, 2009. Lockhart v. State, Cause
No. 34A05-0905-PC-293 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2009). However, the trial
court allowed Lockhart to file a direct appeal of his 1998 sentence, which this
Court affirmed on May 20, 2015. Lockhart v. State, Cause No. 34A04-1407-CR-
351 (Ind. Ct. App. May 20, 2015). Following another round of unsuccessful
post-conviction litigation, Lockhart ultimately filed a motion for clarification of
his sentence and registry status on January 31, 2019. On July 9, 2019, the trial
court issued an order denying that motion. Lockhart now appeals.
[4] Lockhart’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it denied
his motion for clarification of his sentence and registry status. Currently,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1839 | December 4, 2019 Page 2 of 3
Lockhart is incarcerated and serving out his sentence for felony child
molestation. Lockhart has not been ordered to register as a sex offender
following release from the Department of Correction, and we will not know of
the trial court’s orders until, at the earliest, February 29, 2020—provided that
Lockhart is even released then. In other words, Lockhart’s release date is not
readily apparent, and whether he will be required to register as a sex offender is
unknown. Therefore, any motion to clarify Lockhart’s registry status is
speculative in nature. See, e.g., Gardner v. State, 923 N.E.2d 959, 960 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009). Given this conjecture, we find that this issue is not yet ripe for
appellate review.
[5] The judgment of the trial court is vacated as premature, and we dismiss this
appeal.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1839 | December 4, 2019 Page 3 of 3