Opinion ID: 1744354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The offense was committed partly in Mobile County and partly in Montgomery County

Text: Although the issue regarding the place in which the offense was committed has been adequately briefed in the State's Opposition Motion, it is worth restating. The Defendant was indicted by the November 1981 session of the Montgomery County Grand Jury for violating § 22-1-11 of the Alabama Code which in relevant part makes it unlawful for: (1) Any person who, with intent to defraud or deceive, and (2) Makes or causes to be made, (3) Any false statement representation of omission of a material fact in, (4) Any claim or application for any payment from the Medicaid Agency. In the instant case, Defendant presented fraudulent claims to the State Medicaid Agency for the purpose of receiving payment from the Agency. The Agency is located in Montgomery County. Although the false statements contained in the claim form were apparently made by Defendant while in his office, which is located in Mobile County, the crime for which he was indicted was not consummated until the claim for payment from the Medicaid Agency was received and accepted as a viable claim in Montgomery County. The State accepts Defendant's proposition that the State Constitution guarantees the accused a right to a trial in the county or district in which the offense was committed. This right is satisfied when part of the acts constituting the crime are committed in the county in which the indictment is returned. Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 547, 555 (Ala.Crim.App.1979). Moreover when an offense is committed partly in one county and partly in another or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two or more counties, venue is in either county § 15-2-6, Code of Alabama, 1975. The Alabama Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase, or requisite to the consummation of the offense to mean those acts necessary for the completion of the offense or for the achievement of the unlawful purpose. See William v. State, 383 So.2d 564, 566 (Ala.1980). Consequently, venue is proper in Montgomery County if any acts were done in Montgomery County which were requisite to the achievement or end of committing Medicaid fraud. It hardly seems arguable that there were acts done in Montgomery County which were requisite to the achievement or consummation of the offense. Obviously the act of making false representation in the claim form, in and of itself, does not constitute Medicaid fraud. For instance, had Defendant merely made out the claim form with an intent to defraud the Agency, but never presented such claim forms for payment from the Agency, the crime of Medicaid fraud would not be complete, since payment from the Agency had not been requested. Until such request was made, the Agency would not and could process the claim to determine if payment was proper. Logic dictates that if the claim form is never received for processing by the Agency here in Montgomery, there has been no application for any payment from the Medicaid Agency. To hold otherwise is to say that the crime of Medicaid fraud was consummated at the time the forms were made out in Mobile, whether or not such claims were ever submitted to the agency for processing and payment. For this reason and in accord with Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 564 (Ala.1980), § 15-2-6 is applicable here. That is, a part of the crime was committed in Mobile County (intent to defraud, making out the claim form) and that part necessary for the achievement of this unlawful purpose or consummation of the offense was committed in Montgomery County. The Court should note that § 15-2-6 is not a basis upon which to change venue, but extends the jurisdictional reach of the Court. See § 15-2-6 (notes). Given the factual situation of this case, the State respectfully requests that the Court find that: (1) Defendant presented inadequate grounds upon which to base a change of venue, and (2) Part of the crime for which defendant was indicted was committed in Montgomery County. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles A. Graddick CHARLES A. GRADDICK ATTORNEY GENERAL /s/ Robert S. Thompson ROBERT S. THOMPSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EXHIBIT F IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA, ) ) PLAINTIFF ) ) V. ) CASE NO. CC-81-1850-P ) EYSTON ASQUITH HUNTE, ) ) DEFENDANT. ) O R D E R This case is presented to the Court upon the State's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendant's motion for change of venue, and upon consideration of same the Court grants the State's Motion to reconsider, and upon reconsideration the Court affirms its prior Order of January 22, 1982 removing the case to Mobile, Alabama. DONE this the 9th day of February, 1982. /s/ Joseph D. Phelps CIRCUIT JUDGE Robert S. Thompson Herndon Inge, Jr. THE STATE OF ALABAMA  JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT THE ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 3 Div. 544 Ex parte State of Alabama, ex rel. Charles A. Graddick, as Attorney General of Alabama In re: State of Alabama v. Eyston Asquith Hunte PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Montgomery Circuit Court IT IS ORDERED that answer by respondents and briefs by all parties be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals by April 12, 1982, should the parties desire to file such answer and briefs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if oral argument is desired, this Court shall be notified immediately, so that argument may be set in this Court. Tyson, DeCarlo, Bowen, and Barron, JJ., concur. Harris, P.J., who would deny this petition, dissents. WITNESS, Mollie Jordan, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, this 5th day of April, 1982. /s/ Mollie Jordan CLERK, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA THE STATE OF ALABAMA  JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT THE ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 3 Div. 544 Ex parte State of Alabama, ex rel. Charles A. Graddick, as Attorney General of Alabama In re: State of Alabama v. Eyston Asquith Hunte PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Montgomery Circuit Court Number CC-81-1850-P TO THE HONORABLE JOSEPH D. PHELPS, AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA, GREETINGS: You are hereby notified that the Court of Criminal Appeals on April 20, 1982, did make and enter the following order in the above-styled cause: Come the petitioners and file in this Court a petition for Writ of Mandamus to be directed to the Honorable Joseph D. Phelps, as Judge aforesaid, commanding and requiring him to rescind and hold for naught his order of January 22, 1982, granting the defendant's motion for change of venue transferring State of Alabama v. Eyston Asquith Hunte from Montgomery Circuit Court to Mobile Circuit Court. NOW, THEN, in pursuance of the foregoing order, the peremptory Writ of Mandamus hereby issues to the Honorable Joseph D. Phelps, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, commanding and requiring him to rescind and hold for naught his order of January 22, 1982, granting the defendant's motion for change of venue transferring State of Alabama v. Eyston Asquith Hunte from Montgomery Circuit Court to Mobile Circuit Court. Tyson, DeCarlo, Bowen, and Barron, JJ., concur. Harris, P.J., dissents. WITNESS, Mollie Jordan, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, this 20th day of April, 1982. /s/ Mollie Jordan CLERK, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA