Opinion
23A-CR-2765
06-19-2024
Chad Hickey, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ALEXANDER L. HOOVER ALEXANDER L. HOOVER & ASSOCIATES, LLC PLYMOUTH, INDIANA ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE THEODORE E. ROKITA ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE BRIZZI DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marshall Superior Court The Honorable Matthew E. Sarber, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 50D03-2209-F6-247
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ALEXANDER L. HOOVER ALEXANDER L. HOOVER & ASSOCIATES, LLC PLYMOUTH, INDIANA
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE THEODORE E. ROKITA ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE BRIZZI DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Vaidik, Judge
Case Summary
[¶1] Chad Hickey appeals his conviction for welfare fraud, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support it. Concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] The evidence most favorable to the conviction is as follows. Around the beginning of 2022, Detective Les McFarland of the Marshall County Sheriff's Department learned of a "trend" of incarcerated people applying for unemployment benefits despite being ineligible, with the help of people on the outside. Tr. Vol. II pp. 28-29. He obtained a list of Marshall County Jail inmates, which included Hickey. Detective McFarland gave that list to the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and later was given records showing that Hickey had applied for and received unemployment benefits while incarcerated. Specifically, Hickey was in the Marshall County Jail from December 5 to 22, 2020, and then again from May 21, 2021, to April 25, 2022. His unemployment records show that an initial claim was filed on June 8, 2020, and that weekly claims were filed through September 2021, even while he was incarcerated. While Hickey was incarcerated he obtained at least $7,500 in unemployment benefits.
[¶3] Detective McFarland saw that both Hickey's email address and the email address of his wife, Windie Cherrone, were linked to Hickey's unemployment account. Detective McFarland then listened to a recording of a phone call between Hickey and Cherrone on December 20, 2020, when Hickey was in jail. Hickey spoke about wanting to get out of jail and asked, "Is my money coming through, like unemployment sh*t?" Ex. 2 at 00:43-00:46. Cherrone responded the money wasn't available yet, and Hickey yelled, "[W]hy won't they f***ing pay it?" Id. at 00:47-00:55.
[¶4] After Detective McFarland listened to this call, he interviewed Hickey, who blamed Cherrone for filing unemployment benefits on his account and claimed he knew nothing about any unemployment money. Later that day, Detective McFarland interviewed Cherrone. She said she had filed for unemployment benefits on behalf of Hickey in the past. When asked if Hickey knew she was submitting weekly claims on his account, she responded, "Well of course . . . I did it for him." Ex. 12 at 8:30-8:39.
[¶5] The State charged Hickey and Cherrone with Level 6 felony welfare fraud. Cherrone pled guilty, but Hickey proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, Cherrone changed her story, testifying that she helped Hickey apply for unemployment when he was not incarcerated but "when he was locked up for 12 months, he didn't know that I filed it." Tr. Vol. II p. 82. The jury found Hickey guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to two years in the Department of Correction.
[¶6] Hickey now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶7] Hickey contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. When reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We consider only the evidence supporting the verdict and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each element of the offense such that a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is the job of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. at 1066-67.
[¶8] To convict Hickey of welfare fraud as charged here, the State had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally obtained public relief or assistance by fraudulent means in an amount more than $750 but less than $50,000. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 17; Ind. Code § 35-43-5-7 (2021). Hickey doesn't dispute that unemployment benefits were fraudulently obtained in his name, but he argues the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally participated in obtaining those benefits. A person engages in conduct "knowingly" if, when they engage in the conduct, they are aware of a high probability that they are doing so. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). A person engages in conduct "intentionally" if, when they engage in the conduct, it is their conscious objective to do so. Id. at (a).
Section 35-43-5-7 was repealed effective July 1, 2021. See P.L. 174-2021, § 56. At the same time, the legislature amended Indiana Code section 35-43-5-4, which now covers most fraud-based crimes. Id. at § 48. Hickey doesn't assert that these statutory changes have any impact on his case.
[¶9] Hickey's argument is that Cherrone acted alone, without his knowledge. But two key facts support the jury's contrary conclusion. First, the call on December 20, 2020, shows Hickey's knowledge of the unemployment benefits, as he asked Cherrone, "Is my money coming through, like unemployment sh*t?" Second, when Detective McFarland asked Cherrone if Hickey knew she was filing for benefits through his account, she responded, "Well of course . . . I did it for him." This evidence strongly supports the inference that Hickey was working with Cherrone to fraudulently obtain unemployment benefits.
[¶10] Hickey acknowledges Cherrone's statement to Detective McFarland that she was filing for benefits for him, but he contends Cherrone's trial testimony-in which she said she acted without his knowledge-was more believable. Specifically, Hickey argues that it would have been "perfectly reasonable" for the jury to conclude that Cherrone lied to Detective McFarland but told the truth at trial. Appellant's Br. p. 8. This is a blatant request for us to reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, which we can't do. See Willis, 27 N.E.3d at 1066. There is sufficient evidence to support Hickey's conviction.
[¶11] Affirmed.
Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.