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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT