State Of Louisiana VS Clarence Dudley and Jacklin Gerac Dudley A/K/A Jacklin Ogashi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2006 KA 1087 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CLARENCE DUDLEY AND JACKLIN GERAC DUDLEY Judgment Rendered September 19 Appealed from 2007 the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Case No Attorney General Louisiana 04 02 0314 The Honorable Michael R Erwin Charles C Foti Jr Rouge Judge Presiding Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Tasha K West Assistant Attorney General Baton Rouge Louisiana s Marie Johnson Counsel for Defendant New Iberia Louisiana Clarence Clarence Defendant Angola Dudley Louisiana BEFORE In Appellant Dudley Proper Appellant Person GAIDRY McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ GAIDRY J The defendant Clarence theft fraud Jacklin count one La RS Ogashi of were conspiracy count XI the found and one as guilty on as all conculTently on count XII Clarence sentence to be served X and the were denied sentence Dudley On February 16 was imposed hearing the court 2007 the on they on to rendered counts II on on count XII a new sentences a 2 R S jury trial and was civil money a counts II through Clarence Dudley trial and for through alTest of X both were each sentence to be on to ten years at counts II imposed Jacklin of the codefendant dismissed due to her death charged of money count X hard On the counts II on Dudley moved for denied Following Jacklin Gerac a 5 49 744 DHH and Dudley was judgment of Department of Health and Hospitals appeal 1 000 00 also was X to ten years at hard labor motion a count I imposed count XI but her violation of a violation of La a sentenced were the one each count sentenced consecutively in favor of the Louisiana I Dudley counts II On to the sentences reconsideration of sentence restitution count I Following on charged and count XI consecutively run counts guilty not sentenced to five years at hard labor labor to Clarence They moved for charged also known Dudley of theft of more than count count XII more they were found both found guilty or guilty not judgment but their motions served Jacldin Gerac nine counts of Medicaid fraud 100 000 00 unanimous verdict was related habitual offender a commit Medicaid fraud to 14 70 1 They pleaded they were as amended bill of information with laundering of XI his wife violation of La R S 14 67 a same 14 230 well as charged by amended bill of infonnation with each 14 26 and 14 70 1 violations of La R S by laundering Dudley and Clarence sentence as and money his convictions of Medicaid Dudley appeals against both defendants ordered both Attorney General restitution Office and ordered Clarence s subsequently filed against Clarence Dudley alleging been convicted in distribute cocaine cocaine Dudley that offense was habitual offender bill of information in addition to count XII that 40 967 A 40 967 C to count XII regard vacated and he was Predicate Dudley Clarence was affirm the He possession second a previously imposed the sentenced to fifty sentence on sentences count XI counts on and we felony sentence years at hard labor sentence II X of the Following on He but the motion 2 appeals designating five assignments of convictions and conviction and offender now 1 adjudged moved for reconsideration of the habitual offender denied and 1 he had with intent to Tangipahoa Parish of possession R S hearing habitual offender in a violation of La R S a violation of La a habitual offender was 374 598 33 to pay to DHH The state previously 7 993 65 restitution to the to pay enor we vacate We the affinTI the conviction habitual adjudication and sentence on count XII ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Defendant has assigned error on the pati of the trial cOUli 111 the following respects Defendant 1 money bars prosecution for Medicaid laundering constituted against 2 double a felony theft and violation of the federal and state constitutional The Parish of East Baton general s Rouge was not of defendant for these crimes prosecution office did not have jurisdiction Defendant also filed fi aud jeopardy for the 2 s a pro se brief over supplementing brief 1 l a parish of proper venue and fmiher the attorney him the argmnents raised in his counseled The trial 3 waive counsel court erred in to competence of counsel against professional 4 There find defendant was insufficient evidence guilty beyond when the elements outlined in State the trial comi erred in and it as nothing was more a competence to for measuring norms to justify a rational trier of fact to be to habitual offender a by competent evidence the necessary Shelton 621 So 2d 769 La 1993 failing grossly than of La Const art I v s appropriate finding defendant failed to establish State defendant reasonable doubt The trial comi erred in 5 imposed a assess standard the to according failing out reduce the to of Alternatively mandatory minimum sentence to the seriousness of the propOliion needless infliction of pain and suffering offense in violation 20 9 FACTS The defendant Clarence Gospel Ministry was its Elect 2001 Westend Clarence its the at The the pastor of True Divine Full was also a registered Warbash Kidmed Clinic in New Iberia Dudleys began operating same building registered agent director 1967 Dudley as Dudley incorporated Westend the Tlue Divine as a Medicaid In late 2000 or Full Gospel Ministry and was and administrator screening component of EPSDT by Treatment the federal provide screening eligible children and and preventative provides The purpose of health care young adults under the age of 4 EPSDT goverrunent in is called KIDMED and hearing and dental screening services KIDMED clinic is to who had Westend Kidmed Inc Medicaid program established for medical vision nurse Dudley Westend Kidmed clinic Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Program is to Ms Lady in the The was in New Iberia Louisiana and his wife Jacklin Gerac previously worked early Dudley a services twenty one A KIDMED clinic is years physician the clinic at eligible patients 3 of the programs under Babin a Denver testified discussed linkage KIDMED health child to a on that II becoming certified during a with Jacklin screening for a 21 children linked to the clinic nurse Regional 2001 2001 child the parent had As of Jacklin to Unisys 5 to also from 3 explained s not Babin testified that she worked May of 2001 until August of Westend provider visit Westend to a parent link to that 2001 to 4 she obtain patiicular its was very billing procedures telephone visits as a over Etheridge referred the that the KIDMED Provider Manual being treated told Westend at Etheridge confirmed that Jacklin Dudley face visits with the child April working Dudley advised Etheridge that familiar with the KIDMED Provider Manual and Etheridge Dudley August of 2001 Westend had 1 000 children should have been linked to Westend Dudleys Jacklin In order for Dudley testified Nurse Denver II celiified and that was 29 May KIDMED clinic patiicular as one 28 February in the process of Etheridge by Louisiana KIDMED a that when she visited Westend April a nurse Program Etheridge was perfonned by on DHH administered her that she be tests or a EPSDT and KIDMED services in Louisiana Scarlett assessments to and nurse testing protocol Denver II the Louisiana Medicaid required are with certification in the are registered a Denver II Additionally under six years old have to required Denver II required face 6 screener at Westend Babin stated that Jacklin enrollment documents listed Gabriel lkechukwu as Dudley its medical director 4 Records submitted to DHH from Westend indicated that celiified person at Westend from on March 17 2001 February 1 2001 April until Jacklin Babin was Dudley the Denver II became Denver II certified 5 6 Unisys See n 8 issued checks for payment of Medicaid claims billed to DHH in Baton Rouge infra 5 ordered her to reflected that check every medical chart a Denver II test had been confinned that she perfonned retest on was 18 February Tracy St Julien instlucted her on notes to The Babin that Jacldin Dudleys paid not already contacted nurses and dates and Dudley would sign Alicia Butler sued if she breached to an majority of the claims the claims were were were and perfonn a the Jacldin Dudley children and to completed nurses nurse with use Dudley to match examples of notes to TUlner who told Babin also testified that the brought a Medicaid eligible child After Babin left Westend she was attOlney who cautioned her that she would be confidentiality 11 587 Medicaid claims consultation claims 2 2001 not another the the notes Westend Between March 12 2001 and 24 897 36 Phoenicia supplied then gave the registered supposedly Babin also indicated that Jacldin 5 00 per child to anyone who been by Febluary to Babin According 2001 dates billing who AB Babin incolTectly performed supposedly perfonned March 1 billing the child Babin also indicated she did 2001 instlucted her Janeen TUlner R N what to write on disregard the actual dates Babin tested to dates that matched counseling on verify that the chart to performed Trah Nae 81 Julien on Denver II test which had been on the clinic the person with the initials not Denver II test a at and was 8 642 September paid claims 402 390 63 or 46 445 were 1 816 claims hearing screening and only The nurse totaling Only approximately nutritional consultation claims for vision for the claims 355 totaling largest number of claims The next Westend submitted 19 2001 370 of three of the claims for immunizations Westend maintained Between Febnmry 1 2001 a bank and at account October 30 92 248 09 fi om the Westend bank account 6 Community 2001 First Bank defendant withdrew Between March 13 2001 and 116 006 70 of checks written to himself October 30 2001 he cashed Additionally account 3 860 00 in checks Dudley were between March 13 payable also cashed on cash and to the account 2001 and October 30 the bearing examining Westend defendant had used cashier official checks a few the to leaving some in withdraw money from the Anegra the Medicaid Medicaid cashier new of the services checks and recipient listed in showing by COlmnunity account some of the count held the proceeds for proceeds taking as some of in cash and on only was the mother of Tracy S1 Julien IX and Trah Nae St Julien to Ms St According listed in count X one was February 46 407 paid purportedly provided by Jacklin Dudley different dates between to Tracy purportedly provided by different dates between Tracy and by Medicaid St Julien 8 2001 and March 10 2001 indicating Westend billed and Medicaid for services Julien the The state introduced records occasion that Westend billed and introduced records First Banle proceeds in the account Trah Nae visited Westend however s investigator of she noted that activity the checks into the account S1 Julien testified that she recipient to 2001 Department of Justice account checks refened s days and then redeposited proceeds bank s an the Clarence signature Rider Virginia the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Louisiana testified that in on Jacldin FebIuary 11 was 7 nine The state also paid Dudley on for 297 78 by to Trah Nae S1 2001 and March 14 Julien on seven 2001 Ms 8t Julien also worked at Westend from November of 2000 until May of 2001 She confronted Jacldin Dudley concerning billing for services allegedly provided Dudley claimed 7 Wanda Jones to children when that she had to bill allegedly assisted Jacklin they were separately Dudley 7 not actually at Westend Ms for different services and had on two of the alleged service dates consulted the children the over the After Ms 81 Julien left Westend contents of the files of Westend Michael Davis the Medicaid however records showing 983 28 payment for was shown as that the Dudley responded error only to one the mother of Cln istian According count IV occasion The state services provided to 2001 and 9 services on to introduced and received Westend billed Medicaid February providing Davis confronted Jacklin Jack1in that supposedly for four different dates between Dudley on was listed in recipient Davis Cln istian visited Westend 8 patients parents Clu istina Marie Davis testified that she a claiming she had 50 000 00 Dudleys unsuccessfully sued her for slandered them and disclosed the their 8 telephone Cln istian on twenty August 3 2001 Jacklin eighteen of those service dates Dudley concerning the apparent excessive billing that Westend had OCCUlTed because there were simply made a mistake two Cln istian Davises or claiming because of fundraiseI The KIDMED Provider Manual You have a 9 IV The responsibility Screening Periodicity Schedule provided for coordinating medical vision and hearing screenings If a child is linked to you for medical vision and hearing screenings you must complete the vision and hearing screening on the same day that the medical screening is performed This is to be done on the same day to prevent the child from having to return at a later date Screening of the Manual also provided All be provided components of the medical screening including specimen collection must onsite during the same medical screening visit Emphasis supplied Finally Section or Referring for and Initial Treatment provided VIII Providing Diagnosis Section V Conducting Medical need for the Medical vision counseling or hearing screening findings consultation or may indicate the other intervention by ancillary physician assistants beyond the basic health certified including registered and registered dieticians education and anticipatory guidance components of the medical screening These findings may involve a medical developmental mental health or substance abuse problem or condition found in a screening or an ongoing in a problem or condition These additional services must be provided also face to face setting with the child parents or guardians They may another professional in a school setting be provided face to face with Emphasis supplied persolli1el nurses licensed social workers 8 Helen Thompson testified that she approximately July of Jacklin to Dudley book with a in a fonn a She indicated that 2001 5 00 per child for every child Thompson also Tmner writing out was brought Thompson said that Janeen Turner gave her records and told her to write out notes for the specified by why she September of paid Medicaid card billing Precious Doucet of Turner Westend and ran Westend with 2001 until Westend from at employed was notes for saw billing dates Babin Herlima Polk and billing dates When Thompson inquired to prepare notes for bills September 2001 prior to that month Tmner took the papers away from her Precious Doucet testified she Medicaid recipient listed in listed in count VI Donovan Mason the Medicaid count V the Medicaid confirmed that Cordeniol a the mother of Cordeniol Mason the John Mason the Medicaid and Tenesa Mason time to be in was went to commercial The recipient listed the clinic state July 12 services as 2001 on being provided and August to Cordeniol 25 one listed in com1t VII in count VIII time for a Doucet and one indicating of services twenty different dates between Jacldin 2001 39 730 payment for on 9 checkup introduced records however that Westend billed Medicaid and received represented recipient recipient Dudley allegedly provided eleven of the service dates shown Doucet also testified that Donovan went to Westend for treatment only one occaSIOn Records introduced 39 730 Westend billed and received purportedly provided 2001 and services 9 August on At trial the as 25 to Donovan 2001 in on Once by the state again on revealed that payment fiom Medicaid for services twenty different dates between July 12 again Jacldin Dudley allegedly provided eleven of those service dates prosecutor mistakenly refelTed to the Medicaid Todd Mason 9 recipient listed in count VII Doucet indicated that her on only one the clinic services occasion state allegedly provided August John to records however seventeen treatment establishing that 607 00 of different dates between July Dudley allegedly provided services on of those service dates on a daughter perhaps billboard and records dates between owned Westend Jacklin September was on I twenty September was paid 26 2001 5 00 per According to introduced one Jacldin by different Dudley 0 as a marketing approximately to Doucet child with new time 771 52 paid the clinic from at one state 2001 14 of those dates on seven The checkup to TelTesa and that she worked She the Dudleys Medicaid card Doucet also admitted that she filled out blank brought to Westend notes at nurses a Doucet also testified that defendant hired her 2001 until whom she and 2001 services director of Westend 23 time for allegedly provided 12 July purportedly provided Finally one TelTesa went to Westend indicating Westend billed and however Medicaid for services May on Jacklin 15 2001 Doucet stated that her be produced the clinic for went to billed and received payment from Medicaid for actually 12 2001 and seven The John also son various times at the direction of either J aneen Turner or Dudley Mary Yolanda Narcisse testified she the Medicaid recipient listed in count Medicaid recipient listed occasion each According one II the mother of Craig Babers Jr and Mahogany Narcisse both of whom had been in count III only was to the state s to the Westend on records Westend received payment from Medicaid for 575 82 for bills for services provided to 2001 Craig on Jacldin fourteen different dates between June 16 2001 and July Dudley supposedly provided services twelve of those service 10 Five ofthe service dates bore no entry as to Craig to which 10 on nurse had 30 provided those services Also introduced dates Mahogany on Jacldin 2001 Dudley was not listed testified verified her mother s as Jr to to Westend her date of birth testimony that she as was 3 any of the had nurse 5 August on January only 24 went to on August provided Mahogany Narcisse also patient a was which and that his date of birth confinued that he had been Mahogany testified that entry Craig Babers The children Craig testified no services providing as and allegedly provided fifteen different dates between June 18 2001 and service dates but six of the dates had the service that Westend billed 534 69 for services received payment from Medicaid for to showing records were one 1991 and occasion 1989 and likewise Westend as a patient only once Tasa Jones testified that defendant hired her to work at Westend from approximately April Dudley told seen at failed a to were her that she would May of 2001 see billing records for children she had not held her position had bill for services for those children Jones also indicated that a representative of either Medicaid telephone Medicaid pretend linked not to Westend to Westend and to be terminated the DHH defendant instlucted those children to Westend comply with defendant s insttuctions was following the parents of certain children who link to or and her marketing May 9 2001 following day that she would be was seen She identified contract between at paid Westend Jones employment by Kasabiana Beals testified that she worked at Westend between 2001 and Jacldin to Jones previously to refused According Westend because the person who visit from her of 2001 to defendant a as document offered employer 5 00 for every child she Beals explained medical cards 11 by the and herself brought to Apri125 state as a providing Westend and who that those children had to have Phoenicia Neveu testified that she worked practical from nurse 23 2001 until May Dudleys asked her to did not want to have to wait for the signatures before Souvestre the was Operations Section of DHH KIDMED Provider Manual manual contained more information taking medical Souvestre described history perfonTIing immunizations if necessary health education a comply that nurse screening and Program charge actions in anyone a to be face were to a bicycle or sex Souvestre and a or would emphasized the child and the maximum number of units that as a notes a nurse defendant instructed her of children on how to at use a time the and to nurse at Westend She verified that the always bill Medicaid Tmner also indicated that she day the maximum allowed to groups registered of 200 1 until October of 200 1 Dudleys instructed her to sign blank nurses usually spoke giving day approximately April for three units per including children back to face with the parent J aneen Tmner testified she worked from obtain advising them about things like with the lules of the KIDMED or as examination bringing they rode that three units could that helmet when consultations had that the to call to screening physical a Medicaid explained providers medical explained medical blushing their teeth wearing not a and a Program perfonTIing laboratory work if necessary Souvestre KIDMED clinic after charting Westend number for service telephone a licensed claiming they She identified Program to a Section Chief of the Assistant provided as She admitted that consultation fonTIs nurse Medicaid s Westend 15 2001 August the Janis sign blank at and that Jacldin sign Dudley and in sheets to bill for all of the children in the room Jacldin She denied Dudley falsifying defendant or telling s wife and codefendant also testified at trial anyone else to 12 falsify any records at Westend She claimed that after Westend had been open for months the clinic television cOlmnercial day on DHH contacted Westend and stated that it would not 1 provider number unless she and defendant Program Manager Kopsa those had because they Ms a came Westend and were by billed the KIDMED and manual She accused forcing her pennissible as representatives of the Louisiana patient files actually received only rebuttal 200 000 00 11 and Ms Rider place them no one billing was under the KIDMED Department of Justice sign her name to nurses She also claimed that 400 000 00 rather than expressly denied Ms that Dudley to she write or any nurses other notes in the Westend records introduced into evidence Dudley testified that not give us a provider would Jacklin that Program Depm1ment of Justice investigator forced sign them regular basis but claimed that them in Westend Westend had to Dudley conceded that she to write and place Kopsa the stand in retaliation for anticipatory guidance notes and to On Ms brother s on a under the threat of jail from the KIDMED Dudley claimed that Dudley also claimed on Program for telephone visits justified s billing St Julien lied Dudley Ms DHH requested technical assistance Jacklin billing to assist it with Dudley claimed Anegra wrong committed of problems unfamiliar with to a Joseph Kopsa Ms though employees of Westend called Unisys from DHH the clinic she and defendant asked Dudley claimed that Ms were to provide next the clinic but would not disclose the nature of problems with problems spoke charge of program integrity in let them know what the even She claimed that the King Day Martin Luther ran a we were contacted number unless 13 we by DHH and that DHH stated that it talked to Joe Kopsa DOUBLE JEOPARDY In his first evidence was he laundering assigmnent of defendant contends that enor necessary to prove Medicaid fraud was unconstitutionally placed twice be put in amend V accused or Louisiana for the same liberty for the Supreme L Ed 306 Blockburger 309 12 1932 test when Under the v recognized Us 284 U S and the same evidence test crime would also same evidence testimonial evidence necessary The Blockburger The test is applicable as well has 304 evidence In Const protects the Clause conviction as a second detennining been violated tests 182 if the proof required the same as to support a support conviction of another crime a conviction for App more than 1st Cir 1993 one writ 679 So 2d 1372 test to focuses secure a upon the actual conviction This test physical and depends upon follows rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes the test to be a to violation of two distinct statutory provisions applied detennine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each proof of an additional fact which the other does not provision requires Blockburger 76 in recent However on the the test ie 52 S Ct 180 test LeBlanc 618 So 2d 949 957 La denied 95 2216 La 10 4 96 The 299 US evaluating double jeopardy claims same v offense different two prohibition against double jeopardy bars See State or money person shall no Supreme Court has principally relied finding of guilt of one crime Jeopardy same acquittal that offense same jeopardy prohibition Court has the Louisiana evidence offense after for the same jeopardy provide The Double 15 double the not established in 12 or against multiple punislunents whether the of life La Const art I prosecution years jeopardy felony theft and in double The federal and state constitutions both the as 284 U S at 304 52 S Ct at 182 14 the proof required Thus convict to under the the evidence not evidence same how the evidence ie the court s test evidential focus of the facts adduced trial in light goes to presented at satisfy the proof Therefore if the evidence required crime would also be placed in La 9 5 96 supp011 jeopardy for support only one of the two State state federal Social Security payment false or of the verdict rendered prosecution a 95 2226 p 5 adduced at trial was DHH by which they also constituted theft as the means amounts of fi audulent conduct from Westend s s banl practices actions in account or lmew knowingly were location conducted and then ownership obtaining greater Dudleys double actions or activity to control of those conceal jeopardy prohibition laundering in that he involving proceeds or disguise the nature proceeds laundering because the evidence did required supp011 the finding of guilt of Medicaid fi aud the fi audulent billing did 15 to redepositing cashing Defendant s convictions for Medicaid fi aud and money not violate the or ce11ified checks for money mancial transactions derived fi om criminal source Westend representations Lastly obtaining obtaining additional ce11ified checks constituted defendant at taking of something of value that belonged contended that defendant state ce11ain and by for legally entitled for fun1ishing were The state further contended that the another that they presented services at Westend a can Sandifer v false infonnation for the purpose of to burden of medical assistance program created under the Act and administered compensation than that s finding of guilt of one a fi audulent claims for services rendered knowingly submitted is with the concern committed Medicaid fi aud when with intent to Dudley through trial 1329 the evidential focus of the facts defendant and Jacklin defraud the to at conviction for another offense the defendant a 679 So 2d 1324 Here actually introduced to not also support the conviction for money nature required to conduct practices from proceeds derived evidence money or The the latter Thus a Clarence Accordingly than 1 000 count XI La App Dudley are means taking of of fi audulent did involve the billing same test for evidence violation of double jeopardy severely punishable affinn the conviction and sentence of the 7 by fi audulent the the conviction and sentence of the less 95 2103 p fiaud the double case procedure for remedying McMooain However the suppOli the Medicaid fraud convictions and the to required met in Medicaid representations the laundering conviction jeopardy is disguising the support the finding of guilt of theft i e money same or of proceeds derived from the Medicaid fraud or source evidence laundering concealing more is to vacate offense severely punishable 1st Cir 9 27 96 and to State 680 So 2d 1370 1374 conviction and sentence for theft of s v more hereby vacated In summary defendant s first assigrunent of enol has merit in part SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his fourth presented by the theft or assigrunent of failed state that he did any act commit Medicaid fraud considered aiding and been show that he committed Medicaid fi aud theft or that he did proof of his guilt sufficiency of Our resolution of defendant s first act an or He fmiher theft he could 13 the evidence to most uphold favorable assignment of error vacating defendant s over 1 000 count XI renders unnecessary any consideration of the ofthe evidence supporting the vacated conviction 16 to anything that could be viewing the evidence in the light for theft or directing another of Medicaid fraud guilty of the crime of money laundering conviction is whether as another to cOlmnit such The standard of review for 13 defendant argues that the evidence that could be considered abetting argues that absent such not have or to enol to a the conviction sufficiency prosecution any rational trier of fact could conclude the state essential elements of the crime and the defendant of that crime be must beyond prove State So 2d 485 La When a reviewing Wright v 486 2000 0895 convict to 98 0601 99 0802 conviction is based court must that evidence in the light proved on App La R S most favorable to the to 730 15 438 When the direct by the direct evidence and the rational beyond a by viewing prosecution for was which test So 2d 1157 resolve any conflict in the direct evidence conclude also both direct and circumstantial evidence reasonably infened from the circumstantial evidence to we of innocence is 748 facts juror perpetrator 1st Cir 2 19 99 10 29 99 quoting evidence is thus viewed the facts established a the that the evidence tends hypothesis La La 773 So 2d 732 00 as circumstantial evidence 2 p identity conducting this review evelY reasonable writs denied 17 11 s evelY fact to be assuming order III excluded the reasonable doubt In expressly mindful of Louisiana in part states a s proved the must be sufficient reasonable doubt that the defendant guilty of evelY essential element of the crime Wright 98 0601 at p 3 730 So 2d at 487 The reviewing evidence in the alternative not have light most hypothesis found court proof is IS required favorable to sufficiently of the to evaluate prosecution and reasonable that guilt beyond a of innocence the defendant is reasonable doubt 12 31 03 a rational juror could When a presented by the defense that hypothesis falls State v Smith 2003 0917 799 17 p case reasonably rejects guilty unless there is another hypothesis 868 So 2d 794 circumstantial determine if any reasonable doubt involves circumstantial evidence and the trier of fact hypothesis the 5 La that App the and raises 1st a Cir All persons concelned in the commission of or absent and whether they directly aid and abet in its commission another to defendant commit the crime s mere presence at the Only those cnme execution of making them persons who liable as crimes for which he has the 12 13 1323 La 6 29 01 Social false Security or to be concelned claim La R S v act for DHH by or to those Neal 00 0674 pp v 122 S Ct to defraud presents for payment any services fmnishing legally merchandise or 14 70 1 A entitled for to follow his not statements from circumstantial evidence such the circumstances intent Specific as a IS be proven 18 by a defendant an 1981 La R S to act inferred from the circumstances of the transaction as specific intent a actively desired the prescribed failure or question of fact it need by direct evidence such furnishing services of mind which exists when the state act La or obtaining greater Medicaid fraud is McDermitt 406 So 2d 195 202 criminal consequences proven only denied 535 U S 940 cert circumstances indicate that the offender a planning of any person who with intent Specific criminal intent is that intent is him in the 2002 than that to which he is See State Though in the a in its commission thus State state However conceln may be connected principal Act and administered merchandise crime to submits false information for the purpose of compensation or 14 24 procure any medical assistance program created under the federal fraudulent knowingly R S knowingly participate requisite mental Medicaid fraud is the through enough 796 So 2d 649 659 152 L Ed 2d 231 the state is not the offense indirectly counselor La A principals or crime whether present constituting act principals scene crime may be said a directly or are commit the a as a fact It may be Specific defendant s ultimate actions 14 10 1 or intent may be by inference facts depicting or legal conclusion to be resolved by the fact finder Cir 6 23 00 State 762 So 2d 747 v 751 Henderson 99 1945 p 3 La App writ denied 15 6 01 00 2223 La 1st 793 So 2d 1235 Louisiana any money knowingly person transaction s laundering conduct to the nature location ownership source be derived from such violation resembles 18 U S C 7 the latter S to 1956 is statute in 14 230 B The activity disguise or known proceeds to provision closely Thus the federal highly instructive See l financial a to conceal part i a B or the control of or La R S facilitate or be derived from criminal in whole designed provides that it is unlawful for supervise involving proceeds known when the transaction is interpreting statute Wright jurisprudence 98 0601 at p 730 So 2d at 489 18 U S C or disguise the defendant does S source not 434 F 3d 42 50 51 transaction probative 1956 l a of i criminalizes conduct B proceeds conceal his lst Cir designed own 2006 of specified unlawful activity identity in the process Factors helpful to conceal include of intent to conceal unusual secrecy was structuring the transaction in a designed to conceal in even See us v if the Hall determining whether a statements by sUlTounding the way to avoid attention a defendant transaction depositing illegal profits in the bank account of a legitimate business highly ilTegular features of the transaction unusual financial on Cir the using third parties moves cumulating in the transaction practices of criminals 2005 cert to conceal the real denied Us v Magluta US owner or series of expeli testimony 418 F 3d 1166 126 S Ct 2966 a 1176 lIth 165 L Ed 2d 949 2006 After evidence a thorough viewed in the review of the record light most favorable 19 to we the are convinced that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the exclusion of every reasonable to hypothesis of im10cence all of the elements of Medicaid fraud and money laundering defendant jury heard the identity s as a perpetrator of those offenses defense arguments that defendant occurring However the Westend at unlinked Westend Westend for and billing Jacklin not consistent patients Jones on the was emphatic Dudley instructed her to sign blank nurse and highly unusual defendant withdrew and of any witness So 2d 1365 State v ilTegular accept Lofton The so or as of the as testimony Rider regarding transactions in which from the Westend bank account in whole reject jury also heard well Investigator Virginia features to Westend that defendant at nurses redeposited money The trier of fact may do those children of testimony that defendant consultation fonns from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit obviously credited link to in her to fraud impersonate the parents telephone and testimony from several former instructed them the also heard and jury Tasa Jones to testimony that defendant directed of any Medicaid unaware was The and 96 1429 p 5 in or part the testimony App 1st Cir 3 27 97 691 17 10 1368 writ denied 97 1124 La La 97 701 So 2d 1331 The guilty verdicts rendered against Clarence Dudley demonstrate that the jury reasonably rejected least In a principal his hypothesis of innocence and concluded that he to Medicaid fraud and reviewing the evidence we was cannot say attempt ovelimTI to a assess the factfinder s 14 La 11 29 06 guilty that the ilTational under the facts and circumstances Ordodi 2006 0207 p also of money jury presented s to 946 So 2d 654 credibility of witnesses or to was laundering detenninations them 662 at are See State v We will not reweigh the evidence to determination of guilt Additionally defendant s asseliion that he could laundering without proof of his guilt of conspiracy 20 to not be guilty of money commit Medicaid fraud of Medicaid fiaud or transaction crime absolutely no of theft is incorrect the involving requirement that be involved in the underlying Money laundering is proceeds of some See Us crime v financial there is other crime defendant accused of money a a laundering also Awada 425 F 3d 522 525 8th Cir 2005 Defendant fourth s assignment of error has no merit VENUE AND PROSECUTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL In his second assignment of Rouge Parish was not in East Baton He also a parish of proper Rouge Parish and the challenges was crime has the a offense or an venue not because he committed citizen a or to right 9 16 requires impartial an trial in the parish prosecute him that every person element of the offense occurred unless accordance with law to acts no resident of that jurisdiction of the attorney general Louisiana Constitution art I with defendant argues that East Baton error where the parish venue is charged changed in Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure mi 611 A provides All trials shall take been conullitted constituting in an than more unless offense one offense is deemed in the place or place to the if the elements of an in parish improper case venue out or comi crime venue On charged is proper So 2d 624 628 a denied the motion by La a cOlmnitted State beyond v in this a to case was not required required reasonable doubt State Odorn 02 2698 p 6 21 based quash noting that although preponderance of the evidence 1985 the state parish Dudley moved pre trial motion the trial judge is not was or element occurred Jacklin and Clarence The trial of the could have been tried in New Iberia the in New Iberia a or offense occurred have been committed in any state in which any such act Prior to trial parish where the offense has is changed If acts venue to La the be tried to find that but v on only Gentry App that 462 1st Cir 6 27 03 861 So 2d 187 198 writ denied 03 2142 La 03 17 10 855 2d So 765 There was no fraud and money East Baton in the comi error laundering were properly Rouge Parish because acts Westend s facsimile telecopier was a to him to in Baton programmer for Unisys in in East Baton or sent Nelson Parish Bergeron billing information by P Mmiinez IV testified Rouge Westend submitted Medicaid under Rouge its See Odom 1417203 provider number at issue depleted effect of the Medicaid fraud and money Rouge elements or Unisys which issued checks in payment of Additionally because the criminal conduct DHH the force have been committed in the offenses Joseph Rouge to DHH in Baton Baton to Rouge Parish Medicaid biller testified that Westend Medicaid claims billed claims found The Medicaid on venue constituting of the offenses occurred in East Baton that he ruling s 02 2698 at pp the funds of laundering 9 10 was felt 861 So 2d at 201 There was attorney general district attorney case a case no in error district attorney Const art general to IV sufficient constitutional the prosecution of the or protection shall have authority advise and assist in the assistance of the att0111ey This of this matter by the Rouge Parish requested by letter that the attorney general prosecute the attorney La prosecution The record establishes that the East Baton As necessary for the assertion the state of likewise S 8 general A district s office in predicate for case the of any interest of request prosecution of any criminal attorney s letter prosecuting a attorney general assigmnent of error is without merit or upon the written itself McDermitt 406 So 2d 22 right this requesting criminal s is a involvement in at 204 in either of its case the respects FAILURE TO ASSESS COMPETENCE TO WAIVE COUNSEL Defendant frames the issue follows The presented by his third assigmnent of enol as question presented here is where verbal and written requests to exercise his Sixth Amendment representation despite his attempts counsel should the trial competent An to represent self and defendant a unequivocally asserted the right by Leger case basis 05 0011 US p 53 anaigmnent he could not appointed to afford on to September self to right counsel to self 13 However the unequivocal Requests that 9 representation by knowingly counsel intelligently detelmined and circumstances of each 147 48 cert are and on a State v denied 100 2007 3 2002 after defendant retain counsel the office of the represented that public defender was represent him Assistant Public Defender Bo Rougeou conferred with defendant and he entered On November 12 adequate 2d Ed and the art I 936 So 2d 108 La 7 10 06 to defendant is right representation must be considering the facts 127 S Ct 1279 167 L At matter to self not or between the has Whether right appointed indigent to whether clear and representation repeated right to choose must be self one s equivocal case as Const amend VI La Const between vacillate inquire and federal constitutions state U S representation right of some use to waive counsel and exercise that guaranteed in the choice make to court at least accused has the defendant makes a counsel He a 2002 not guilty plea defendant filed complained a pro se motion requesting that counsel had not instructed him on any concerning the charges asserted against him On counsel February He 3 2003 defendant filed a motion to complained Rougeou had detennined that guilty 23 terminate he appointed defendant was On 13 Febluary Public Defenders 2003 defendant and Rougeou defendant 2003 Trial hearing as for motion a counsel and the hearing matter was 13 2003 On March 13 status Flynn with Assistant comi III Barry Milligan Defendant stated that he would hire Jo reassigned for March appeared for set was appeared in August 18 with court 2003 Milligan for and the matter a was continued On motion 15 May 2003 On hearing On for withdraw from had not days On trial On trial 2004 status 2003 August The trial comi appointed and the Jonathan appeared in comi with granted the prior motion to that the motion indicated that defendant was October 2 motion hearing court defendant appeared displeased with the advice of to return to comi reassigned appeared in in court in proper person The Holloway to represent Clarence Dudley 2003 defendant On a a withdraw from to monthly income and ordered him 4 2003 defendant September 3 for defendant Rougeou for privately retained counsel hearing Holloway a with The court also noted defendant had testified in representation with comi then status 25 comi Rougeou moved cooperated with counsel and that he deposition that he had in ten July representation noting counsel and his a 2003 hearing status a appeared in 23 July representing defendant Rougeou defendant appeared in comi 2003 defendant appeared The defense moved for the trial to March 1 comi with with a Holloway for a in court with continuance of the 2004 On Febluary 13 Holloway and Victor Woods for a hearing On Febluary 27 representation motion to 2004 defendant filed In continue representation but also claimed that he 24 a pro his motion was entitled motion se to he a for self requested self legal Coach to advise the d efendant of Defendant complained that the case had not issued not On March 1 Woods for trial On July On hearing trial court On 2004 not had time defendant to July 2004 proprio motu 27 as trial court reassigned the hearing a in court with comi with Woods for Dudley appeared to that he two The trial comi reassigned the trial Well in court with Woods for appeared in court in proper 2004 Clarence to have her in court the at least as person for Dudley appeared not want on behalf of Mr re in comi Woods a going a following day we get to trial 25 or 30 2004 Dudley that The court then noting Im aware of lawyer And it seems to me they either want to hire a lawyer or either they want to fire the ones they got which seems to me that they re just trying to delay the thing Every time this comes up that happens Mr Dudley just this morning has said he hired Ms Marie Johnson and that she will be his lawyer now And of course she wants a continuance because she can t be here today He wants to have a lawyer get a continuance and then he ll that every time his that if he wanted Johnson to s to hire as week been attempts to ask that they And at the same time there s been attempts Dudley there they the a Defendant advised counsel following day November represent themselves tell me that Marie Johnson thereupon told defendant to and I guess Mrs to 27 2004 thought Johnson would be available in about represent him he needed The trial for November 29 2004 but instead wanted S court July status The defense moved to continue the trial and the On November 29 the trial a in court with Woods for trial with Woods for trial Defendant then stated that he did counsel Holloway and continuance of the trial and the appeared in On October 27 2004 defendant status inquiries about interviewed witnesses had ordered the trial continued scheduled his to prepare for trial appeared appeared 2004 Clarence trial previously he not to 26 2004 19 2004 defendant 26 July hearings had The defense moved for July ex and had the trial legal issues and the law counsel had failed to respond had any motion subpoenas comi reassigned variety of strategies probably same fire her situation by the this Trial trial date and then This continues And I ve let it now next and over over and Ive let it happen happen has just gotten completely dilatory began on ll be in the we and but it November 30 2004 with Woods again over seems to me representing Clarence Dudley In the instant case defendant representation rather he simply failed to clearly right to self never representation His competency denied his not was to and right of self unequivocally invoke his waive his right to counsel was at issue This assigrunent of enor is without merit HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION AND EXCESSIVE SENTENCE In his fifth prove he was the argues assigrunent the same of error defendant argues that the state failed to person convicted of Predicate mandatory sentence him to applied as 1 Alternatively he was constitutionally the state is required exceSSIve To obtain multiple a establish both the offender prior felony conviction and person convicted of that felony 1 testimony from witnesses the defendant when in the duly number 3 15 02 the offender evidence 2 race use a attempting do to so the state may or 4 and date of birth 1130 specific type to same present expert opinion regarding the fingerprints of 3 photographs evidence of identical driver State v Payton 00 2899 The Habitual Offender Act does of evidence hearing and prior convictions Payton that the defendant is the compared with those in the prior record 810 So 2d 1127 state to In authenticated record sex adjudication to may be its burden can proved by 00 2899 at p 8 810 So 2d at 1132 26 at any s p not a license 6 La require habitual competent In the instant in addition case to count XII 12 30 59 and Louisiana had the habitual offender bill of information Clarence 16 under the 1 under the guilty plea of 1993 16 1993 guilty plea alTest state 4 a black male Social transcript showed that Clarence Dudley being advised of his also reflected that Clarence pleaded guilty possession Criminal Records rolled Dudley date Boykin v minute entry of 30 12 59 Dudley black male Social d dated cal Security 12 7 93 for 438 08 4048 to possession The minute of biIih 12 30 59 The represented by rights pleaded guilty entry represented by with intent to distribute cocaine and presented testimony from Analyst Kathy Williams and Louisiana State Police Williams testified that her updating criminal records history and verifying accepted Williams fingerprints 14 4 12 30 59 original fingerprint possession of cocaine possession the state maintaining court a date of birth 12 30 59 I fingerprints with fmgerprints already trial 3 of the of cocaine Additionally involved to fingerprint a suppOli of its date of birth Security number Boykin with intent to distribute cocaine and counsel Dudley Iberia transcript a 2 439 64 63 857 and 64 439 copy of New Dudley date of biIih 63 857 and Dudley after 1 In 107 Interlude New Iberia Louisiana number 438 08 4048 and counsel 1 dates of 10 27 05 and 9 4 02 for Clarence date of biIih 12 30 59 Clarence introduced of Clarence s date of birth of a of 107 Interlude Clarence s Tangipahoa Parish Docket cards for black male with convicted of Predicate previously been Tangipahoa Parish Docket February a last known address a proof concerning Predicate February Dudley alleged that as an in the criminal records database job new The expert in the identification and analysis of Williams testified that she had examined Alabama 395 U S 238 89 S Ct 1709 23 L Ed 2d 274 27 1969 fingerprints purportedly belonging 1 fingerprints Clarence to Dudley taken taken from Clarence Dudley in connection with Predicate in connection with his anest count XII and upon ten points of identification she concluded that belonged fingerprints to the same taken from Clarence had her by the fingerprinted 1 the Clm ence defense regard of defendant belong offender that there as the Article I statutory limits excessive sentence same other the crime and second a violate and is a defendant subject to A or is nothing sentence punishment more 1 are on the habitual to the Predicate competent evidence s a to 1 identify 1 prohibits the sentence may be within constitutional appellate review right against Generally grossly dispropOliionate a to the imposition of pain grossly disproportionate considered in light of the harm 28 felony fingerprints did regard than the needless is considered comi obtained in fingerprints with Although considered excessive if it is suffering the to no enor presented punishment it may severity of the crime and The trial section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution punishment is 1 The trial court noted that the person convicted of Predicate of excessive imposition 1 did not proof that defendant 1 established that the Predicate bill of information the State defendant 1 Even in the absence of fmgerprints adjudication card Amite District the agency that in Predicate fingerprints We find all taken original fingerprint on an insufficient to count XII known s defendant to was Dudley involved connection with Predicate indeed fingerprints argument and adjudged defendant s habitual offender with matching fingerprints argued that the bill of infonnation for Predicate fingerprints and rejected the the defendant in connection with Predicate contain any same contained Depmiment of Conections The defense was were Based open court Williams confinned that the person in connection with Predicate sent to Dudley in on to if when society it is disproportionate so as wide discretion in the to shock be not manifest abuse of discretion 1st Cir 10 3 00 judge is given imposition of sentences within statutory limits and the imposed should sentence A trial of justice one s sense State 797 So 2d 75 aside set excessive in the absence of as Hurst 99 2868 v 83 writ denied 10 11 pp 00 3053 App 10 5 01 La La 798 1993 the So 2d 962 In State Louisiana mandated contribution to to nothing is grossly than out of which s sentence to recognized that are charged with Supreme COUli re minimum as that would in Dorthey crimes is be not was purely Legislature s a mandatory was to measurable no that the sentence amounts of pain and punishments La minimum he is duty only after and constitutional convincingly show that 29 as to in bound light unless they and that are of acts The court determine the felonies length courts found to be Citations omitted 3 4 98 709 So 2d Dorthey permits sentences rebut the and suffering constitutionally excessive prerogative examined the issue of when sentence judge determines that the legislative function classified 97 1906 Johnson that La the determination and definition of 623 So 2d at 1278 cOUli held or made these from the trial of the crime severity applying v The the Dorthey In State Act to imposed for crimes unconstitutional depmiure one i t is the of the sentence of punishment recognition that express a 1280 81 purposeful imposition holding punishable are the propOliion However the cOUli 1276 Habitual Offender Act makes by the acceptable goals more reduce the the 2d So Supreme Court recognized that if punishment to 623 Dorthey v a 672 the downward in the Habitual Offender presumption that the mandatory the defendant had to clearly and he is which in this exceptional unusual circumstances legislature tailored failure s the to to this is of the offender one hundred thousand dollars fifty thousand dollars La R S than if the value of the shall be or more nor more 14 230 ninety 14 230 E imprisoned 1 this state Any person who after of felony a felony within this state punished as follows a If the at hard nine years and may be 4 Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 529 1 in peliinent pmi A of the gravity 8 709 So 2d at 676 at p labor for not less than five years fined the meaningfully are the of case Whoever violates the provisions of La R S funds is that because of victim a sentences that offense and the circumstances of the Johnson 97 1906 means defendant assign culpability context provides been convicted within having thereafter commits any subsequent upon conviction of said felony shall be second is felony conviction the offender would be such that upon a first punishable by imprisonment for any term less than his natural life then the sentence to imprisonment shall be for a determinate term not less than one half the longest term and not more than prescribed for a first conviction As a sentenced to second fifty felony habitual offender years at hard labor ordered and reviewed imposing extent our subject pre sentence investigation office is of the opinion that sentence commensurate with case and the to assign sentences PSI in this case and admit court prior to no guilt a DOC of these offenses is in order clearly was a and convincingly show victim of the meaningfully tailored gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the 30 was Given the scope and the no remorse nature defendant failed to were defendant period of incarceration and the serious that tenn prosecution and in view of the fact that because of unusual circumstances he failure count XII investigation a longest The record shows that the trial and his codefendant express In the instant on The PSI report concluded sentence of this criminal that the a twice the legislature to his case s culpability Accordingly there was no reason R S 15 529 1 A the record the the l for the trial in a sentence court to sentencing defendant Based imposed was severity of the offense and thus This deviate from the assigmnent of enol of La provisions upon our review of certainly not grossly disproportionate was not to excessive unconstitutionally is without merit PRO SE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR In his pro brief defendant raises se attacks the habitual offender States Booker v Blakely Washington v 2004 and Apprendi L Ed 2d 435 1 was a 543 U S 2000 v adjudication 220 because felony 296 not he Initially violative of the rule of United 160 L Ed 2d 621 530 U S jury did he Secondly issues 124 S Ct 2531 Jersey a as new 125 S Ct 738 542 U S New two 466 159 L Ed 2d 403 120 S Ct decide whether challenges the legality 2005 or 2348 not 147 Predicate of the search of Westend A issue nor the review of the record indicates that neither the suppression issue was motion or error to suppress cannot be order of the comi his counsel made or C CrP comi mi 703 F and the VACATED take grounds therefor AND CONVICTION CONVICTION at the time pro inegularity the ruling or made known to the comi or of his La objections C CrP ON art SENTENCE COUNTS ON HABITUAL OFFENDER TION AND SENTENCE ON COUNT XII AFFIRMED 31 An a to 841 the La l SENTENCES AND although he filed adopted the motion comi to La C E mi 103 A CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED and sought the pmiy the action which he desired the action of the never court availed of after verdict unless was Apprendi preserved for appeal Defendant failed the Apprendi issue before the trial to argue se thorough II COUNT X XI ADJUDICA
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
