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.