Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-criminal-appeals-after-pleading-guilty-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3950 posts. Posted on November 10, 2021 by Barry Zalma
Sandy Diane Pinney, appealed the March 2, 2021 judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas overruling her motion to dismiss due to pre-indictment delay, and the March 30, 2021, judgment sentencing her to twelve months community control on one count Insurance Fraud. In State Of Ohio v. Sandy Diane Pinney, 2021-Ohio-3483, No. 2021-A-0013, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula (September 30, 2021) the Ohio Court of Appeal dealt with the claim.
FACTS
Ms. Pinney, a fairly incompetent insurance fraud perpetrator, in October 2018, staged a fall on a broken egg while shopping at Wal Mart. Much to her surprise, she was actually injured and suffered a broken ankle. Wal Mart denied her insurance claim and she received no monetary compensation. An investigation was submitted to the prosecutor’s office in 2019.
Meanwhile, in August 2021, Pinney was under indictment for an unrelated offense, to which she pleaded guilty and served a twelve-month prison term. In October 2020, after her release in the unrelated matter, the state charged her with one count Insurance fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(1)&(C), a felony of the fifth degree, in relation to the Wal Mart fall.
Pinney filed a motion to dismiss due to a pre-indictment delay arguing prejudice in that she was deprived of the ability to argue for a concurrent sentence, or from seeking a negotiated plea that would have concluded the matter prior to her release from prison. Additionally, she argued that although the events occurred in 2018, the conviction appears on her record in 2021, after the completion of the 2019 prison sentence. The trial court overruled her motion, finding there was no evidence that the State was negligent or intentional in the delay, and that appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice in preparing her defense due to the delay.
In March 2021, Pinney, seeing a conviction on the way, withdrew her not guilty plea and entered a plea of no contest to an amended count one, Insurance Fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. By so doing she avoided jail and the court sentenced her to a twelve-month period of community control.
ANALYSIS
In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss for preindictment delay, the court reviews only the legal issues, but affords great deference to the trial court’s findings of fact.
When unjustifiable preindictment delay causes actual prejudice to a defendant’s right to a fair trial despite the state’s initiation of prosecution within the statutorily defined limitations period, the Due Process Clause affords the defendant additional protection.
the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified that preindictment delay violates due process only when it is unjustifiable and causes actual prejudice. Once a defendant presents evidence of actual prejudice, the burden shifts to the state to produce evidence of a justifiable reason for delay. If the defendant fails to show actual prejudice, the state need not present evidence justifying the delay in the case.
To demonstrate prejudice, Pinney must point specifically to how she was prejudiced, and the showing must be concrete, not speculative. This court has made it clear that speculation does not show actual prejudice. The possibility of faded memories, inaccessible witnesses, and lost evidence is insufficient to demonstrate actual prejudice. Thus, mere possibilities do not prove actual prejudice.
Pinney argued that the delay in prosecution deprived her of the ability to argue for concurrent sentences or negotiate the plea in the unrelated case. The state argued that her argument must fail because she presented no evidence of this allegation to the trial court.
Pinney’s argument is fundamentally, and fatally, speculative; she argues that she was not permitted the opportunity to argue for concurrent sentences. Thus, Pinney failed to show actual prejudice, and her sole assignment of error was without merit. Her sentence stood.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance criminals have no honor. After the prosecutors allowed Pinney to plea to a misdemeanor and avoid a return to jail, with unmitigated gall and a total lack of appreciation for the kindness provided to her by the prosecutor and the court, appealed the conviction because it took the prosecutor too long to arrest her while she was in jail on another charge. Her arguments on appeal were specious and she should have had her plea withdrawn and convicted – at trial – on the felony. She got nothing other than waste the time of a trial and court of Appeal.
© 2021 – Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders.
He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/ https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]. Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award. Over the last 53 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals.
Go to training available at https://claimschool.com; articles at https://zalma.substack.com, the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at https://www.rumble.com/zalma ; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ The last two issues of ZIFL are available at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ podcast now available at
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...