ILNews

Charlie White stays free pending appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Convicted former Secretary of State Charlie White’s sentence of one year of home detention will not be executed pending his post-conviction relief appeal, a judge ruled last week.

White’s attorney Andrea Ciobanu said a motion to stay execution of the sentence was granted Jan. 8 by Hamilton Superior Judge Daniel Pfleging. White filed a notice of appeal on Dec. 30, after the court rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Pflegling issued an order denying White’s post-conviction claim on Dec. 23, at which time he also ordered White to begin serving his sentence this month. White sought relief from his conviction of six Class D felony criminal counts including voter fraud, voting in another precinct, theft, and providing a false address on his voter identification card.

Pfleging on Jan. 8 stayed the execution of White’s sentence until the PCR petition is reviewed by the Court of Appeals, according to Ciobanu. “We are satisfied we supplemented the record so he’s able to pursue a direct appeal at this time,” she said.

White’s convictions have been upheld by the appellate courts, but he is seeking post-conviction relief on his argument that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

Pfleging rejected White’s PCR argument that he was damaged when Brizzi didn’t call White’s wife or ex-wife to testify. The judge wrote that each witness’s testimony was “fraught with pitfalls that ultimately could have proven disastrous” for White.

White also has sued Brizzi for legal malpractice before Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed. Brizzi’s motion to dismiss that suit is pending, and no further court dates had been docketed as of Tuesday.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT