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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT