Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Indiana Appellate Court Punishes Me for Trial Clerk's Mistake


Just when you think it couldn't get any dumber, the Indiana Court of Appeals deems my Appellant Brief and Appendix untimely because the Dearborn Superior Court II screwed up again. On February 5, 2018, I filed my appellant brief and appendices with the Indiana Court of Appeals. On February 12, 2018, the Clerk of the Indiana Court of Appeals filed two notices in my appeal: a Notice of Defect re: untimely Appellate Brief, and a Notice of Defect re: untimely Appendix from the Indiana Supreme Court stating,

The Clerk’s Office has received your Appellant's Brief [and Appendix] tendered on 02/05/18, for filing in the above-referenced appeal. Your document has not been filed because it has been tendered after its due date. See Appellate Rule 45(B).

I checked Appellate Rule 45(B):

Appellant's Brief. The appellant's brief shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after: (a) the date the trial court clerk or Administrative Agency serves its Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record on the parties pursuant to Appellate Rule 10(C)

So, then I checked Appellate Rule 10(C):

C. Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record. On or before the deadline for assembly of the Clerk's Record, the trial court clerk or Administrative Agency shall issue and file a Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record with the Clerk and shall serve a copy on the parties to the appeal in accordance with Rule 24 to advise them that the Clerk's Record has been assembled and is complete.

And then I checked Appellate Rule 24:

24(C). Manner and Date of Service. All E-Filed documents will be deemed served when they are electronically served through the IEFS in accordance with Rule 68(F)(I). Documents exempted from E-Service will be deemed served when they are: (2) deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid

The Case Summary of my appeal on the website of the Indiana Supreme Court provides the following as to when the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s record was filed: “File Stamp 01/04/18.” I called the clerk for the Indiana Court of Appeals to get a grasp on the logic. The woman explained my filings were untimely because my 30-day time frame to file my appellant brief and appendix began on 01/03/18; the date listed on the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record and attached Certificate of Service filed by Rick Probst, Clerk of the Dearborn Superior Court II:

I certify that on January 03, 2018, I served a copy of this document upon the following person(s) by MAIL.

The certificate of service listed the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Daniel Brewington, and Clerk of the Appellate Court as recipients of the clerk’s Notice. The problem is Probst failed to mail the Notice until the day after the date Probst certified the Notice as being mailed and served.

Appellate Rule 25 states the computation of time for deadlines begins on the day following an order or applicable act. Thirty days after the January 4th filing of the Notice of Completion landed on Saturday February 3, 2018, which advances the deadline to the following business day; Monday February 5, 2018. When I called the Clerk of the Indiana Court of Appeals, she said I missed the deadline.

The woman claimed I should have begun computation of time from the date stamped on the trial clerk’s Notice, not the date shown as being filed with the Indiana Supreme Court/Court of Appeals. After inquiring as to why the Clerk of the Appellate Courts showed the Notice as being filed on January 4th She told me the Appellate Court filing date was dictated by the date of the postmark, which was January 4th. She then suggested that Rick Probst may have been a day late mailing the Notice to the Court of Appeals. I told her both the Appellate Court and I were copied to the certificate of service and my envelope was also was post-marked January 4, 2018. The woman instructed me to be sure to include a copy of the postmarked envelope in my Motion to File a Belated Appeal.

“Belated Appeal?” I can’t make this up. I get punished because the Dearborn Superior Court II mailed the Notice of Completion the day after the date listed on the Certificate of Service. The Indiana Court of Appeals said my appellate filings were untimely claiming my computation of time began on the day before the Court could recognize the Notice as being filed. Seriously. “Documents exempted from E-Service will be deemed served when they are...deposited in the United States Mail.” The Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record was postmarked January 4, 2018. The entry on the case summary from the Indiana Court of Appeals also includes a memo stating, “Certificate of Service-Mailed 01/03/18.” If the Notice was mailed on 01/03/18, the Court’s case summary would also show the Notice as being filed on 01/03/18. The absurdity of the situation is beyond comprehension:

The Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure precluded the Indiana Supreme Court from file stamping the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record prior to the postmark date; however, the Court ruled my Appellant Brief and Appendix were untimely because I should have recognized that the computation of time started the day before the Supreme Court could recognize the Notice as being filed.

There really are no words. I guess I’ll just keep fighting the good fight and file what I need to file. Stay tuned for more information.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Indiana Chief Deputy AG Faces Scrutiny for Violating Federal Law


The State of Indiana retaliated against me for criticizing the Indiana Court System. Here’s the common-sense analysis: If my conduct had any resemblance of being criminal, why did former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard instruct the trial jury to return guilty verdicts claiming I violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys?

“As to Count II, Intimidation of a Judge, that is more serious because it involves a Judge but because it involves a Judge, we do need to look at the first amendment issues because you are allowed to criticize judges. Right? I mean, I'm not. Defense counsel's not because we are attorneys. But remember he says he's acting like an attorney so we should treat it as he's acting like an attorney. Well if he's acting like an attorney, then he needs to accountable like an attorney. He could hire his own attorney but he didn't. So you know and he has to suffer the consequences." -Closing arguments by F. Aaron Negangard Trial transcripts page 515 (Appellant Appendix 22)

There is no such criminal law. Negangard made it up. The false ground for prosecution would normally warrant a mistrial or be grounds for vacating the convictions on appeal. Indiana officials continue to make excuses in rationalizing why my convictions are constitutional, while ignoring the conduct of Chief Deputy Negangard. My consequences for criticizing judges while “acting like an attorney” were nothing like those described in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. My consequences include serving a 2.5-year prison sentence and living with the label of being a convicted felon. Negangard’s actions are a federal crime. A prosecutor cannot convene a grand jury and prosecute someone for a non-existent crime to punish someone for protected speech. Doing so is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

F. Aaron Negangard is now Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has personally signed on to represent the State of Indiana in my appeal of Negangard’s unconstitutional prosecution. The above statement and many other ridiculous arguments by Chief Deputy Negangard appear in my Appellant Brief and attached appendices filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals. These filings prove both Attorney General Hill and the Indiana courts are fully aware of Negangard’s criminal conduct. Even an argument against Negangard’s conduct being criminal requires a contention that Negangard simply made up the argument to confuse the jury to obtain convictions, which is both unconstitutional and an act of malicious prosecutor misconduct. The Indiana courts continue to ignore Negangard’s conduct and now Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has signed on to help detract attention from a federal crime committed by his own chief deputy. Negangard even admitted my prosecution was not about the victims, as Negangard stated the prosecution was to prevent me from “perverting” the Indiana judicial system.

Stay tuned for updates. The office of Attorney General Curtis Hill is also representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking grand jury audio. I filed the lawsuit after discovering portions of the grand jury transcript and grand jury audio do not match; the same transcript that formed the basis of Negangard’s prosecution against me. If the Indiana Court System and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill continue to cover-up potential federal crimes committed by Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard, I’m going to make sure that the public knows about it.  




Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill to Defend Civil Rights Violations


The State of Indiana offers a post-conviction remedy to “[a]ny person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court of this state, and who claims that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state. I filed a petition for Post-conviction but Judge W. Gregory Coy summarily denied my petition. In an order lacking any foundation in law, Judge Coy ruled there was no factual basis to any of my 20 claims, granted summary judgment in favor of the State (in spite of the State arguing summary judgment was not available), and dismissed my entire petition without hearing. On 02/05/2018, I filed my appellant brief and supporting appendices in the appeal of Judge Coy’s ruling.

Indiana Courts continue to ignore the fact I had no assistance of counsel in preparing for trial and how no one would explain what illegal acts were responsible for my indictments and convictions. Complicating matters is the prosecutor in my trial is now Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill. Attorney General Hill has taken on the case himself on behalf of the State and on behalf of the personal interests of his chief deputy, F. Aaron Negangard.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that the prosecution by Negangard was an illegal act to punish my critical speech directed at Dearborn County court officials, under the guise of a grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution. Negangard admitted to such in his closing arguments to the trial jury:

“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we want. That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable.” Tr. 504-505 -Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard.

These are Negangard’s statements. This is a federal crime. Negangard admitted the purpose of obtaining grand jury indictments and criminal convictions were just a means to stop me from perverting the Indiana’s system of justice. Negangard made up crimes to prosecute me for speech Negangard did not like. There were no objections by the trial judge or my public defender, only supporting the fact that they had no interest in protecting me from Negangard’s malicious prosecution. Adding fuel to the malicious prosecutorial fires were the allegations by deputy prosecutor Joeseph Kisor. During closing arguments, Kisor told the trial jury that I could potentially murder someone in the courtroom during trial with a .357 Magnum handgun:

“Would you be afraid if you knew right now, based on what you've seen and what you've heard, the distorted thinking, the almost maniacal attacks that he will go, the steps he will go to, to attack people. Would you be afraid if you knew and I hope to God he doesn't but if he had a .357 in his pocket right now, would you be in a little bit of fear? Man, I would.” Tr. 451 -Deputy Prosecutor Joeseph Kisor.

These are acts of official misconduct that Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill seeks to defend. Negangard admitted to such. There is no other side of the story. Any claim that Negangard’s statements were rhetoric meant to inflame the passions of the jury is still an allegation of misconduct:

“[I]t is misconduct for a prosecutor to request the jury to convict a defendant for any reason other than his guilt or to phrase final argument in a manner calculated to inflame the passions or prejudice of the jury.” Neville, 976 N.E.2d at 1264

Judge Coy lied in his contention there was no factual basis to my claim. Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard doesn’t shy away from retaliating against people under color of law. Now Negangard’s boss, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has accepted the task of covering up Chief Deputy Negangard’s misconduct, while arguing that the Indiana Court of Appeals should uphold my unconstitutional convictions.

Stay tuned for more information.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Guest Contributor for "The Legal System and All Things Related Blog"


The authors of the book, "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor", Tom Scott and Sara Naheedy, were gracious enough to ask me to be a guest contributor on their blog. The post includes my introduction to arguments appearing in the appellate brief I'm filing with the Indiana Court of Appeals. I am still fighting the good fight against a less than honest Indiana Judicial System.  "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor" is available through the book's website, Amazon, Google Books,  etc. Positive reviews of "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor" include those written by Dr. Ron Paul, Senator Marco Rubio, and former CIA Officer John Kiriakou.




"This is a must-read for anyone who wants access to a variety of practical and not idealistic tools to help increase his chances of emerging from a run-in with our corrupt legal system with his liberty and/or property intact."
"Not just a book, but a public service. The good guys—the innocent—don't always win. With this book's help, you can learn exactly how to defend yourself and ensure justice prevails despite our system."
"Thank you so much for your book. America is truly blessed with individuals who offer their time and resources to educate others in their community about important issues facing our nation."
Doctor Ron Paul
Former CIA Officer
John Kiriakou
Senator Marco Rubio

Friday, January 5, 2018

The Executive Director of the Indiana ACLU Knows

I sent the following letter to Jane Henegar, Executive Director of the Indiana ACLU. In the letter I explained how I was forced to trial without the assistance of a lawyer and without any knowledge of the indictments against me. I was told by the prosecution to rely on the complete transcription of the grand jury to prepare for trial and then the 340-page transcript was withheld from me until a week before the trial. What I did not know at the time was the prosecutor used grand jury transcripts that were altered by the trial court. When I sought the audio from the grand jury, the Dearborn County Superior Court II altered the grand jury audio in an attempt to match the transcripts. I am waiting for a hearing in my lawsuit against the Dearborn Superior Court II that seeks the original audio of the grand jury investigation. Complicating matters even more is the fact the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in the matter because Hill's chief deputy is F. Aaron Negangard, the former Dearborn County Prosecutor who used the altered records to convict me. This is not speculation but fact because the transcripts contain more information that the audio from which it was originally transcribed. And now the Indiana ACLU knows.


January 5, 2018

Jane Henegar
Executive Director
ACLU of Indiana
1031 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202-3952

Dear Executive Director Henegar,

           I am contacting the Indiana ACLU to make you aware of the legal situation regarding grand jury investigations in Dearborn County, Indiana. In 2011, I was indicted and convicted on a variety of crimes stemming from my public criticism of officials within the Dearborn County Court System. I was marched to trial despite, on multiple occasions, informing the trial judge that my public defendant refused to ever meet with me to discuss my case. A week before my trial, my public defender mailed a copy of the 340-page grand jury transcript to me while I was incarcerated in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center on a $500,000 surety/$100,000 cash bond. I was given only a week to read the 340-page transcript, which served as the only means by which I was to determine what actions I was required to defend. As the indictments of my case covered several years and mentioned no specific actions, and since my public defender refused to meet with me, I appeared at my criminal trial with no understanding of my case. On several occasions, I explained to Special Judge Brian Hill, Rush Superior Court, that my public defender, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett, refused to speak to me outside of the courtroom. I explained I had no idea what actions I was required to defend. I filed three pro-se motions addressing these issues on the morning of my trial. Judge Hill refused to even ask Barrett if my accusations were true. Judge Hill only offered me the opportunity to represent myself. As I had no understanding of my case, I obviously declined. After serving a 2.5-year sentence, I discovered I was not provided a copy of the entire transcript from the grand jury proceeding because the transcript began at witness testimony. As the prosecution offered the transcription into evidence during a hearing in my criminal proceedings, in 2012 my family requested a copy of the grand jury audio per the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”), but was denied. I made the same request in 2016 but again was denied. After filing a complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor, the PAC issued an advisory opinion dated April 14, 2016 stating the audio was a releasable record. It was then that the Dearborn Superior Court II began claiming that other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with mine and Special Judge Brian Hill directed the court reporter to prepare a copy of audio that pertained only to my investigation. The Court changed the file format and names of audio files and copied and pasted the grand jury audio; presumably to match the transcript that was prepared five years prior. Most concerning is the fact the transcripts contain more information than the audio from which it was originally transcribed.

           I am currently taking two legal paths in trying to clear my name. The criminal/PCR courts have no interest in protecting my rights. I am currently appealing the blanket denial of my verified petition for post-conviction relief. Special Judge W. Gregory Coy denied all twenty grounds I raised for post-conviction relief without a hearing by simply stating: “There is no factual basis to support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and attorneys involved in his case.” [See attached order] Of course my petition explained I had no assistance of counsel outside of the courtroom and I had no understanding of the indictments when the trial started. Just like Judge Hill, Judge Coy ignored my claims and granted summary disposition in favor of the State, on the Court’s own motion. Judge Coy granted summary disposition in favor of the State despite the State arguing a hearing was necessary because issues of material fact made summary disposition/judgment unavailable.

           I am pursuing a second avenue via an APRA lawsuit against the Dearborn Superior Court II. I’ve just filed a motion to set a hearing on the matter. [See attached petition] To this date, the Defendants claim there is no record of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony. Complicating matters is the prosecutor who conducted the grand jury investigation was F. Aaron Negangard, current Chief Deputy to Attorney General Curtis Hill. During my criminal trial, the prosecution instructed me to rely on the “complete” transcription of the grand jury investigation to determine what actions the State alleged to be criminal. Unbeknownst to me at the time, Barbara Ruwe, court reporter for the Dearborn Superior II, omitted Negangard’s opening statements and instructions to the grand jury occurring prior to witness testimony. Now the Defendants claim that there is no record of my grand jury investigation prior to witness testimony. The Dearborn Superior Court II claims a record of the investigation prior to witness testimony does not exist but the court is fighting the release of the original audio files claiming that other grand jury proceedings are intertwined with my proceeding. For this to be true, the court reporter would have had to let the recording device run throughout all the proceedings without stopping. This contention might be plausible if there were verbal cues in the record such as “we are back on the record of Brewington.” In the absence of such cues, it would be impossible to accurately transcribe any one investigation that was intertwined with others. Of course, the Dearborn Superior Court II has made no mention of whether the grand jury record was never recorded, deleted, or whether Negangard simply began presenting evidence and witnesses without any explanation of the alleged crime(s). It seems apparent that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has no intention of protecting the public from this type of activity because the Indiana Attorney General is serving as opposing counsel in both the appeal of my post-conviction petition and my APRA lawsuit. Despite clinging to the claim that I face a fair criminal trial and appellate process, no one wants to address how the missing grand jury records prohibit me from knowing exactly why Negangard made me a target of a grand jury investigation and being able to defend which of my actions Negangard argued were unlawful.

           At every turn, Indiana judges and lawyers have done everything to steer clear of this situation because it represents what is known in some circles as the “Indiana way” of doing things. I’m not overly optimistic that the Indiana Chapter of the ACLU has the “resources” (aka: legal and political capital) to address a case as toxic as this. Any assistance on these issues would be greatly appreciated but not expected.


Very truly yours,


Daniel P. Brewington

Enclosed:


Copy of PCR Court’s Order granting sua sponte summary disposition in favor of State

Monday, October 30, 2017

Judge W. Gregory Coy’s Injustice Made Easy

Very few people could comprehend being incarcerated on $600,000 and forced to trial without any assistance of counsel in the United States but here's the role Switzerland County Circuit Judge W. Gregory Coy played in allowing Indiana to get away with it....

“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we want. That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable. He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and that's what we're asking you to do.”

     These are the closing arguments by Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard explaining why he sought indictments and convictions against me when Negangard was the Dearborn County Prosecutor. I had no idea what actions I was supposed to defend because my public defender, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett, never met with me in jail to discuss my case. I told the special trial judge, Rush Superior Court Judge Brian Hill, that Barrett never met with me to discuss my case. I filed three motions addressing the issues but Judge Hill refused to question Barrett about it. Judge Hill said he wouldn't consider my motions because I had legal counsel to file them for me. I filed the motions because Barrett would not speak to me. Following my conviction, my appellate attorney Michael Sutherlin said I couldn’t raise Barrett’s non-existent representation on appeal because there was no record of trial strategy. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions, claiming Barrett’s "trial strategy" waived my right to relief from the unconstitutional guilty verdicts and the unconstitutional aspects of Negangard's prosecution. Chief Justice Loretta Rush speculated Barrett employed a "trial strategy" to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional arguments. Rush also claimed the motions I filed demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the First Amendment, but Rush failed to address the fact I filed the motions because Barrett refused to speak with me or provide me with any assistance in preparing a defense for trial. This year I filed a petition for post-conviction relief and raised numerous grounds, one of which pertained to the fact that Barrett refused to meet with me. Coy signed an order on September 25, 2017 denying my petition for post-conviction relief. Coy didn’t make any specific findings of fact as required by the Indiana Post-Conviction Rules. Coy simply dismissed all my claims by stating:

“There is no factual basis to support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and attorneys involved in his case.”  


No kidding? Of course, there’s no factual basis because the Indiana Courts continue to silence my complaints that my attorney never met with me to prepare for my case. Barrett submitted no evidence, called no witnesses, and even admitted during closing arguments that he wasn’t sure what two of the indictments were even about. The Indiana Supreme Court couldn't have known what Barrett’s trial strategy was because I didn’t know what Barrett’s trial strategy was. Trial strategy is determined in post-conviction proceedings but Coy deprived me of the ability to establish that Barrett did NOTHING by dismissing my petition. Current Dearborn County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens is fully aware of the situation but does nothing. The prosecutor’s pleadings were signed by Andrew Krumwied, a West Point Alum. As Krumwied’s brothers in arms are fighting and dying for our freedoms, Krumwied fights to take them away for political convenience in Dearborn County, Indiana. The same people who probably condemn kneeling NFL players are the people hiding behind closed doors, mocking the United States Constitution. Judge W. Gregory Coy took the path of least resistance rather than a path of justice, just to punish someone who had the courage, or stupidity, to challenge the “Indiana System of Justice.”

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Judge W. Gregory Coy Refuses to Protect Right to Counsel

For over six years the Indiana Courts have refused to address the fact that I was forced to trial without the assistance of counsel. In a 2.5-page Order dated September 25, 2017, Special Judge W. Gregory Coy continued this trend by denying all 20 grounds raised in my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”) in the Dearborn Superior Court II. Judge Coy, who normally serves as Circuit Court Judge for Switzerland County, Indiana, denied my petition without a hearing. Coy gave only the following rationale for dismissing my PCR petition: “There is no factual basis to support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and attorneys involved in his case.” Judge Coy told me that Summary Judgment was unavailable under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) and then turned around and awarded Summary Judgment in favor of the State despite the State never requesting Summary Judgment. In fact, the State actively argued AGAINST Summary Judgment claiming issues of material fact precluded the Court from granting Summary Judgment to either party. The Dearborn Superior Court II waited two weeks to provide me a copy of the order. Coy’s order is just another example of the Indiana Courts circling the wagons to protect their own. 

JUDGE COY REFUSES TO PROTECT DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

I have used the analogy that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. I have repeatedly explained how I was denied legal assistance and indictment information prior to trial but the Indiana Courts continue to obstruct my ability to present a case to support my claim. Judge Coy’s recent order is not unlike the problem of sexually harassment in corporate America, which has recently gained the proper attention following the recent findings of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein. Rather than address abuses in my case, Judge Coy decided to turn his head. Prior to my criminal trial, my public defender refused to meet with me outside of the courtroom. I communicated this to trial judge Brian Hill on numerous occasions, but Hill refused to ask Barrett if my allegations were true. Former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard stood silently, waiting to take full advantage of the unconstitutional error. I told my appellate lawyer Michael Sutherlin about not having any assistance of counsel, but Sutherlin refused to address it. The Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ignored my written and verbal concerns appearing in the trial record. In my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, I expressed the same concerns to Judge Coy but Coy claimed there was no factual basis to support my claim. In the case of Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 748, (2003), the court stated, “[W]hen a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, and the facts pled raise an issue of possible merit, the petition should not be summarily dismissed.” It is important to note that Judge Coy never argued that my claims lacked merit. Judge Coy did not allege my claim to be false. The State continues to ignore my claims. I could easily prove Barrett refused to meet with me or speak to me by obtaining visitor and/or phone records during my incarceration in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Unfortunately Judge Coy stripped me of any opportunity to obtain/present this evidence in an evidentiary hearing; a hearing that even the Dearborn County Prosecutor argued was necessary. 

COY “GIFTS” SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO STATE

 In the State’s response to my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, the Dearborn Prosecutor wrote, “It is without sufficient information to admit or deny paragraphs 1 AND 3 through 18.” In response to my Motion for Summary Judgment, the State claimed it “did not address every specific ground alleged and raised by Brewington in either his Petition or Motion for Summary Judgment, the State reserves the right to address these issues at an evidentiary hearing on the matter.” Not only did the State not address all my claims, the State asserted an evidentiary hearing was necessary per Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Rule 1(4)(g) states, “If an issue of material fact is raised, then the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably possible.” The facts gleaned from the pleadings are as such: 1) The State argued the existence of multiple issues of material fact throughout my PCR petition; 2) The State argued Ind. PC R. 1(4)(g) prohibited Summary Judgment because the issues of material fact triggered the requirement of an evidentiary hearing. 3) The State claimed it did not address every ground I raised and reserved the right to do so during an evidentiary hearing. Despite the State arguing against Summary Judgment while calling for an evidentiary hearing, Judge Coy refused to hold an evidentiary hearing and awarded Summary Judgment to the State. 
JUDGE COY’S SLIGHT OF HAND 

I originally requested Summary Judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 56. The State alleged the request to be improper under TR. 56. Believing to have made a technical error, I asked Coy to consider my request under Rule 1(4)(g). Judge Coy wrote, “The State argues that summary judgment is not available in a post conviction relief claim; this court agrees, but does find that summary disposition is still available pursuant to Indiana Rule PC 1 Sec. 4(g).” Coy premised the dismissal of my entire PCR petition on a non-existent technicality. In State v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 984 N.E.2d 704, (2013), the court wrote:

“The summary judgment procedure that is available under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) is the same as under Trial Rule 56(C).” Under both rules, summary judgment is to be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citing Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g); Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)).”

Indiana case law demonstrates Summary Judgment and Summary Disposition are the same in post-conviction proceedings. Judge Coy tried to take advantage of me as a self-represented litigant. As the State’s issue of material fact argument barred the State from receiving Summary Judgment, Coy drew a non-existent distinction between Summary Judgment and Summary Disposition and then buried the State’s issues of material fact argument as if the issues of material fact only applied to my denied Motion for Summary Judgment. But even Coy became confused with his own logic as Coy wrote:

“Even though the State did not move for summary judgment, based on the undersigned judge’s reading of the pleadings and the appellate cases mentioned above, judgment should be entered without a hearing.”

The State did not move for Summary Judgment because the State argued issues of material fact barred Coy from issuing Summary Judgment. Judge Coy dismissed the State’s arguments against Summary Judgment and awarded Summary Judgment to the State. Coy awarded Summary Judgment to the State immediately after explaining my request for Summary Judgment should be denied claiming Summary Judgment was not available to me in a post-conviction proceeding. In addition to making various false claims, Judge Coy’s Order failed to meet the basic requirements of Ind. PC R. (5):

“The court shall make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.”

Coy made no specific finding of fact to support the summary dismissal of all 20 grounds raised in my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, while Coy stripped me of any opportunity to obtain or present any evidence or facts to support my claims.

THE FACTS SUPPORT VACATING BREWINGTON’S CONVICTIONS

It’s an elementary concept that people have a constitutional right to legal counsel in criminal proceedings. During my trial, Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, appointed the Chief Public Defender of Rush County, Bryan Barrett, to be my public defender. Barrett refused to speak to me about the case prior to trial. Barrett even admitted during closing arguments that Barrett was unaware of exactly what actions were responsible for the indictments against me. Just like prior Indiana Courts, Judge W. Gregory Coy refuses to address this. Coy also refuses to address the fact that the grand jury transcript contains less information than the audio from which it was allegedly transcribed. The State told me to rely on the grand jury record for specific indictment information knowing the record had been altered. Leading the State’s prosecution at the time was former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. Negangard now serves as Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Coy’s efforts fall in line with the way Negangard retaliated against me for challenging “our system of justice.” Negangard boldly made the claim during closing arguments in my trial.

“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we want. That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable. He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and that's what we're asking you to do.” -Negangard’s closing arguments. 10/06/2011 Tr. 504-505

For those unfamiliar with the law, prosecutors are not allowed to request a jury to return guilty verdicts for reasons other than a defendant’s guilt. Negangard went far beyond this fundamental principal by telling the trial jury to return guilty verdicts against me for a non-existent crime different than the indictments. This is the conduct that Judge Coy and the Indiana Courts seek to protect. Because the conduct is so egregious, the only way to protect the conduct is to pretend that it never happened.

Judge W. Gregory Coy doesn’t care about the rights he swore to uphold. I signed an affidavit standing behind my claims. If my statements were false, Judge Coy should take action against me, but Coy can’t. I don’t lie. Judge W. Gregory Coy is the liar. Coy cowers behind his black robe to protect misconduct while rather than give me an opportunity to voice my case. Now I’ll have to see how Coy rules on my Motion to Correct Error. I’m not holding my breath that an Indiana Court is going to demonstrate any integrity.