ILNews

Judges order woman resentenced for health care fraud

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a woman knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud, but it sent her case back to the District Court for resentencing. The District judge violated the ex post facto clause by sentencing her under the wrong version of the sentencing guidelines.

Carol Woodard was the managing director of Gideon’s Gate, which provided educational services to children of indigent families. When the Indiana Department of Education stopped providing funding to the non-profit in January 2006, Woodward enrolled Gideon as an authorized Indiana Medicaid provider, but she provided no medical services. She fraudulently billed Medicaid from January 2006 through December 2007.

She submitted 2,437 false claims to Medicaid for a total of $8.9 million in phony services. Woodard was indicted on one count of health care fraud.

As the first trial date approached, Woodard filed the first of many motions to change counsel. After the District Court appointed a third attorney, it sua sponte ordered Woodard to undergo a competency examination because it felt that she might not understand the nature of the proceedings against her. After a doctor concluded that Woodard was competent to stand trial because she knew and understood the charges against her and was able to assist in her defense, the court found Woodard legally competent to stand trial. Nearly two years later, after several more delays and new attorneys, Woodard asked for a second competency evaluation, which the court denied. Woodard pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 80 months imprisonment.

In United States of America v. Carol Y. Woodard, 12-3363, Woodard argued that the District Court abused its discretion by not ordering a second competency evaluation; that she did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty during her Rule 11 colloquy; and the judge violated the ex post facto clause at sentencing.

The federal appeals court rejected her first two claims, finding the trial court reach a reasonable conclusion after it reviewed a previous psychological evaluation, considered the advice of two mental health professionals, and considered her interactions with her attorneys, Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote. A review of the record shows that she voluntarily and knowingly pleaded guilty during her colloquy, as no red flags were raised to alert the court to the contrary.

But, the 7th Circuit agreed that Judge Larry J. McKinney sentenced her under the wrong version of the sentencing guidelines. She committed her crimes in 2006 and 2007, but, relying on 7th Circuit precedent, McKinney sentenced Woodard based on sentencing guidelines in effect at the time she was sentenced in 2012. Instead of a sentencing range of 51 to 63 months based on the 2007 version of the sentencing guidelines, she was subject to a range of 97 to 121 months.  

The 7th Circuit ordered Woodward resentenced based on Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013). The Supreme Court of the United States held that the ex post facto clause is violated when a defendant is sentenced under guidelines promulgated after the commission of the crime when the use of those guidelines results in a higher sentencing range than the one calculated under the guidelines in effect at the time the offense was committed.

“Although the district court sentenced Woodard under then-controlling Seventh Circuit precedent, it is plain at the time of our review that under Peugh, the district court committed an error,” Williams wrote.
 

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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT