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. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT