ILNews

COA: Man knowingly pleaded guilty to fraud charge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A post-conviction court correctly denied relief to a man on his felony fraud conviction after determining that his felony failure to register conviction should be vacated, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled. Anthony McCullough pleaded guilty to the separate charges in one agreement.

McCullough, a former car dealer, faced charges of Class D felony conspiracy to commit fraud on a financial institution, Class C felony fraud on a financial institution, Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor check deception. The charges stemmed from giving false information on a loan application to purchase a car.

McCullough entered into a plea agreement in 2009 on the Class C felony fraud charge and an unrelated Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender charge under a separate cause number. The agreement capped his executed sentence at two years, and he was ordered to serve it on home detention.

After learning of the decision in Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009), he sought post-conviction relief on both charges. He claimed his guilty pleas weren’t knowing, intelligent or voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney didn’t tell him about the Wallace holding. McCullough was later removed from the sex offender registry because he never should have been required to register. The post-conviction court only granted relief regarding the failure to register charge.  

McCullough didn’t argue that his counsel failed to inform him about a defense to fraud, and the evidence against him for this charge was great, the COA pointed out in Anthony McCullough v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1209-PC-719. McCullough also received a substantial benefit from his plea agreement, facing up to 20 years executed in the Department of Correction on the fraud charge alone.

The judges also pointed out the post-conviction court did not err by separating the charges, as the two charges arose out of two unrelated criminal acts with separate cause numbers.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT