ILNews

Evidence supports felony inmate fraud conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that a defendant obtained a future interest in bail money as well as his release from prison – which constitute property under Indiana law – the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld Elnesto Ray Valle’s Class C felony inmate fraud conviction. Valle convinced a stranger to pay his bail.

Valle was in jail in Grant County on a drug charge and shared a cell with his friend Edward Jay Brummett. Valle contacted his cousin and asked her to pretend to be related to Brummett in order to get money from Brummett’s inmate commissary account to be used to bail Valle out of jail. Valle forged forms, but the plot failed. Valle then tried reaching a friend, but dialed the wrong number and struck up a conversation with Peter Barrett. Valle eventually convinced Barrett, a complete stranger, to pay Valle’s bail with his credit card. He said he could pay Barrett back after being released.

The bail money was posted with the clerk of the court, and Barrett never received money back directly from Valle. He was also charged a $75 service fee for using his credit card.

Valle was charged with and convicted of various counts as a result of his schemes. He only challenged on appeal his inmate fraud conviction and aggregate 16-year sentence. Valle argued the state didn’t provide sufficient evidence to support the conviction under I.C. 35-43-5-20 because he did not obtain money or property from his misrepresentations.

In Elnesto Ray Valle v. State of Indiana, 27A02-1209-CR-772, the judges found Valle’s future interest in the bail money constitutes property for the purposes of inmate fraud. When he posted bail, Barrett agreed to a provision that said the funds will become the property of the defendant and returned to Valle.

“That the bail money, less the $75 service fee, was ultimately ordered returned to Peter is of no matter. Had Valle’s plan not been thwarted, he would have been entitled to the bail money if returned by the court,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote.

The appeals court also agreed with the state that Valle obtained property in the form of his release from jail. It also upheld his sentence, pointing to his lengthy criminal history – both as a juvenile and as an adult. Valle also took advantage of Barrett, whom the court found was “mentally incapacitated.”

 

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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT