Kona Enterprises, Inc. ex rel Handford's, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop ex rel. Peters

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that resolving the question was unnecessary given the facts of the case
• noting that I.C. § 35-50-6-1(b), which limits an offender's term of parole to the lesser of twenty-four months or the expiration of the offender's fixed term of imprisonment, does not apply to sex offenders under I.C. § 35-50-6-1(d)
• rejecting the argument that because a Fifth Amendment violation can oeeur only when an incriminating statement is used against a defendant in a criminal trial, the defendant's attempt to challenge a sex offender treatment program on self-inerimination grounds was not ripe
• Indiana Supreme Court agreed with the rationale in Collins regarding the overly broad probation condition
• “while a parole is an amelioration of punishment, it is, in legal effect, still imprisonment”
• “[The SOMM program’s] requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).