Adebowale Oluseyi Adekale A/K/A Ted Adekale
344 P.3d 761
Wyo.2015Background
- Adekale, a certified Medicaid waiver provider, ran Developmental Resources Center offering residential and day habilitation services to developmentally disabled Medicaid recipients.
- An investigation into billing discrepancies produced evidence Adekale billed Medicaid for services not performed or for amounts exceeding services actually provided.
- State charged Adekale with sixteen counts under Wyo. Stat. § 42-4-111(a) and (b)(i)/(ii); jury convicted on all counts. Trial evidence included service logs, billing records, and witness testimony showing patterns of false billing.
- At trial Adekale moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the State failed to prove (1) he provided "medical assistance" as defined by statute and (2) the precise dates of fraud; both motions were denied. He also objected to jury instructions that omitted the statutory definition of "medical assistance," included the term "habilitation services," and did not define "knowingly."
- District court sentenced Adekale to concurrent terms of 4–10 years (suspended to probation); the State conceded one count was a misdemeanor but the district court treated it as a felony. Adekale appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Sufficiency re: "medical assistance" | Adekale: statute's definition requires proof he paid for services (so State failed to show he "provided medical assistance") | State: statute should be read in context to criminalize providers who falsely represent services to obtain Medicaid payments | Court: statute ambiguous but, read in pari materia and by legislative purpose, § 42-4-111(a) criminalizes providers falsely representing services to obtain payment; denial of acquittal affirmed |
| II. Sufficiency re: dates of offense | Adekale: State failed to prove precise dates as required | State: alleging a date range provided adequate notice; time not an essential element | Court: range of dates permissible where time not essential; denial of acquittal affirmed |
| III. Jury instructions (definitions & terminology) | Adekale: court erred by omitting statutory definition of "medical assistance," adding "habilitation services," and not defining "knowingly" | State: defining the statutory term risked juror confusion; "habilitation" was the charged service and "knowingly" needs no statutory definition | Court: no abuse of discretion—instructions, read as a whole, accurately covered elements; definitions properly omitted and "habilitation services" appropriately included |
| IV. Sentencing error | Adekale: one count was a misdemeanor but treated as a felony in sentence | State: concedes sentencing error on one count | Court: sentencing for Count XVI was illegal; remanded for resentencing to conform to statutory felony/misdemeanor structure |
Key Cases Cited
- Crain v. State, 218 P.3d 934 (Wyo. 2009) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning controls)
- Rodriguez v. Casey, 50 P.3d 323 (Wyo. 2002) (give effect to the most reasonable construction of statutory intent)
- Estate of Marusich v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Health, 313 P.3d 1272 (Wyo. 2013) (overview of Wyoming Medicaid program)
- Anderson v. State, 216 P.3d 1143 (Wyo. 2009) (sufficiency of evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- Lee v. State, 36 P.3d 1133 (Wyo. 2001) (date range acceptable when time is not an essential element)
- Spagner v. State, 200 P.3d 793 (Wyo. 2009) (proving specific date unnecessary unless time is an essential element)