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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT