8 Years in Prison for Forgery to Establish Non-Existent Counseling

Jail House Lawyer Fails

Post 5024

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gTMmp5cX, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gNA3hYEb and at https://lnkd.in/gNa-Vz5x, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

In The People Of The State Of Illinois v. Robert A. Moylan, 2025 IL App (3d) 230248-U, No. 3-23-0248, Court of Appeals of Illinois (March 11, 2025) Robert A. Moylan was found guilty of seven counts of forgery for signing and delivering false documents stating that his clients had successfully completed court-ordered counseling services.

Moylan was sentenced to an aggregate term of eight years’ imprisonment. He appealed, claiming several errors by the court, including the denial of his motions to suppress eavesdrop recordings and evidence seized from his offices, and the denial of his request for a public defender at sentencing.

Acting as his own attorney Defendant appealed, claiming the court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress eavesdrop recordings of counseling sessions, (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his offices, (3) allowing a client to testify about statements he made during counseling sessions, (4) denying his request for the public defender at sentencing, (5) ordering him to serve an aggregate term of eight years in prison, and (6) entering convictions on six counts of forgery in violation of the one-act, one-crime rule.

BACKGROUND

In August 2017, defendant was indicted on seven counts of forgery. The indictments alleged that in July 2016 and February 2017, defendant created and delivered letters which falsely stated that David Molenkamp and Christopher Merkes completed court-ordered counseling for driving under the influence (DUI), made false insurance claims to obtain payment for the services, and knowingly devised a scheme to defraud BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois (BCBS).

Trial Proceedings

Following the State’s case-in-chief, defendant rested. The jury found defendant guilty of forgery on all seven counts and not guilty of insurance fraud, aggravated insurance fraud, and wire fraud.

ANALYSIS

Trial Judge Marchese concluded that the application was legally sufficient. The application, as found in the record on appeal, supports that finding. Investigator York’s 18-page submission provided a detailed description of her conversations with Molenkamp’s ex-girlfriend, as well as her conversations with Molenkamp, and included information regarding her conversations with defendant.

Fourth Amendment Violations

A valid search warrant must state with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Generally, when property of a specified nature is to be seized rather than particular property,then a description of its characteristics is sufficient.

On the merits, the warrants satisfied the particularity requirement. Whether the necessary probable cause existed is governed by common sense considerations that are factual and practical, not by technical nuances. Based on York’s application describing the circumstances of her investigation and the conversations she had with Pascale, Molenkamp, and defendant, the issuing judge had a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that probable cause existed to search defendant’s offices.

Defendant’s Right to Counsel of Choice

Defendant next challenges the denial of his posttrial motion and his sentence based on the violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel of choice.

Excessive Sentence

In determining an appropriate sentence, the circuit court must consider all relevant factors in mitigation and aggravation and balance the retributive and rehabilitative purposes of the punishment. Defendant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, a sentence within the statutory range for forgery, a Class 3 felony.

The court found no error in the denial of the motions to suppress and concluding that the evidence obtained was legally sufficient. The court also found that the admission of witness testimony regarding statements Moylan made during counseling sessions was not plain error. Additionally, the court ruled that Moylan’s forgery convictions did not violate the one-act, one-crime rule, and that his eight-year aggregate sentence was not excessive or improper.

Held: (1) The circuit court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress eavesdrop recordings of counseling sessions; (2) the circuit court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his offices; (3) admission of witness’s testimony regarding comments defendant made during counseling session was not plain error; (4) the circuit court properly denied defendant’s posttrial choice-of-counsel request; and (5) defendant’s forgery convictions did not violate the one-act, one-crime rule.

The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County was affirmed and the eight-year aggregate sentence was not excessive or improper.

ZALMA OPINION

People who commit fraudulent acts, even after they are caught, tried and convicted, have the type of chutzpah that would exceed the gall of a man who murdered his parents and after conviction asked for mercy because he’s an orphan. To bring these motions and require the Court of Appeals to write an opinion in detail on all of his weak arguments is contumacious. Yet, it is important because it make clear in Illinois that these arguments should never be brought again and Moylan should have been happy that he was found not guilty of the insurance fraud counts.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk