Judge rejects Cavanagh’s appeal plea
Fayette County Judge Ralph C. Warman rejected two-time legislative candidate Michael Cavanagh’s appeals Monday, ruling that he received a fair trial last year. Cavanagh, through his attorney, Robert E. Stewart, filed a belated appeal that claimed the court made erroneous rulings and that former Cavanagh defense attorney Brent E. Peck was not effective.
Cavanagh, of Marion Street, Uniontown, was convicted of insurance fraud, criminal attempt to commit insurance fraud, forgery and tampering with records or identification. The state attorney general’s office alleged that Cavanagh submitted a computer-generated bill with forged comments from an auto repair man for $1,300.
The actual job Cavanagh got done following an October, 1996, accident, said investigators, was $106.
After his conviction, Warman sentenced Cavanagh to two to 23 months in a county prison for insurance fraud.
Cavanagh successfully sought bond while he appealed the conviction, and remains out on bond.
The current opinion issued by Warman deals with court and defense attorney errors, and was ordered by the state Superior Court.
The high court, which currently has jurisdiction in the case, asked for the opinion after Cavanagh received permission to file additional points of appeal belatedly.
Cavanagh claimed that his attorney was ineffective because he did not call character witnesses to attest to Cavanagh’s good reputation for honesty, being a law abiding citizen and truthfulness.
To establish ineffectiveness in this manner, Warman wrote that Cavanagh had to show that the witnesses were available, that Peck knew or should have known they existed, they the witnesses would have testified and that their absence was so prejudicial that Cavanagh was denied a fair trial.
Listed in the opinion were nine witnesses Cavanagh wanted to call on his behalf, including his father-in-law, a priest and an attorney.
Warman wrote that because no post-sentence motions asked for a hearing on the matter, he could not determine if character witnesses were discussed between Cavanagh and Peck.
Another of Cavanagh’s claims indicated that he felt the court erred in deciding that Fayette had jurisdiction to hear the trial, and that Cavanagh’s home county was the proper place to conduct the trial.
Since those issues were raised and decided by another judge prior to trial, Warman wrote that the opinion of that judge is sufficient.
Warman’s opinion said, in part, that, “… With the exception of the possible claim of ineffectiveness for failing to call character witnesses, we find the defendant’s issues to be devoid of any merit.”