Countryman v. State

• Citation: 355 Ga.App. 573,845 S.E.2d 312
• Decision Date: 18 June 2020
• Docket Number: A20A0556
• Parties: COUNTRYMAN v. The STATE.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

355 Ga.App. 573

845 S.E.2d 312

COUNTRYMAN

v.The STATE.

A20A0556

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 18, 2020

Ross & Pines, Noah Howard Pines, Atlanta, Andrew Santos Fleischman, for Appellant.

Joyette M. Holmes, District Attorney, Linda J. Dunikoski, Stephanie A. Adrean, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Dillard, Presiding Judge.

Angelia Countryman appeals her conviction for computer theft, arguing that (1) the trial court erred by denying her plea in bar because the statute of limitation barred her prosecution; (2) the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to commit the crime; and (3) her counsel had a conflict of interest. For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm.¹

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,² the record shows that from 2006 until 2013, Countryman worked in the National Guard's education office. And during all relevant times, she was the tuition-assistance manager. The National Guard offers its soldiers $4,500 per year for school and pays that money directly to the school they attend. But to enroll in the next semester and qualify for further tuition assistance, the soldier must maintain a 2.0 grade point average, make a passing grade in each class, and attend their classes. And while employed as the tuition-assistance manager, Countryman was in charge of tuition assistance and tasked with implementing a process called recoupment. Under the recoupment policy, the school retains any tuition assistance it has been paid, but a soldier who fails a class or fails to attend a class is required to repay those funds to the National Guard. Indeed, if recoupment is owed, the money is paid directly from the soldier to the National Guard, and the school has no further involvement.

As part of her job, Countryman was authorized to enter student grades into a National Guard computer system called iMarc using a "CAC card" that was unique to her. Indeed, military rules and regulations precluded her from allowing anyone else to use this card. And in using iMarc, the National Guard had an "honor system" in place, meaning that it accepted a transcript from students or took their word for the grades they received. So, on occasion, education-office employees entered an arbitrary "placeholder grade" for students who needed a passing grade to start the next semester but had not yet received their grades. Under such circumstances, the student was responsible for updating his or her grades with the education office once they were received. That said, it is unclear from the record whether the National Guard had a written policy that a soldier working in the education office could not input his or her own grades into iMarc. Nevertheless, education-office employees apparently knew that they were not supposed to do so. According to Todd Brinkley (who worked with Countryman in the education office), there was probably a written policy against it. But at the very least, through training, Brinkley learned not to input his own grades into iMarc. And another employee, Shannon Byrd, testified it would look suspicious if you worked on your own account, and she never did so because she did not want to get in trouble.³

On October 12, 2012, the National Guard began using a new computer program called GoArmyEd, and the tuition-assistance history in iMarc was transferred to that system. Unlike iMarc, GoArmyEd revealed the identities of employees who entered grades into iMarc, as well as the time and date those grades were entered. And one of the biggest differences between the two systems is that for GoArmyEd, the schools submitted student grades directly into the system, rather than having them manually entered by the National Guard's education-office employees (as required by iMarc).

During her time as tuition-assistance manager for the National Guard's education office, Countryman was also a student receiving tuition assistance and was subject to recoupment. And in 2012, Countryman contacted Sheila Schofield—the central assistant tuition manager at St. Leo University—during the fall term, regarding a class she had taken at the school. Countryman previously requested tuition assistance for a math course at St. Leo, and she was ultimately registered for the class. But after the term, Schofield—who was responsible for maintaining grades between the GoArmyEd and St. Leo systems—attempted to find Countryman's grade for the math class so she could input it into the GoArmyEd system. In doing so, Schofield discovered that the math class for which the tuition assistance was approved had been cancelled, and Countryman was directed to attend a fine-arts class instead. And due to the National Guard's policy that the tuition assistance requested for the math class could not be used for a different class, Schofield "rejected the [tuition assistance] back to the GoArmyEd portal."

According to Schofield, a student must take certain actions if tuition assistance is approved for a class that is cancelled, including dropping the class. Indeed, there is a "drop/add" period in which a student can drop a class, and the National Guard's rules require a student to request tuition assistance for any class five days prior to the start of each term. So, upon learning that Countryman's math class had been cancelled, Schofield immediately contacted Peggy Quick—the National Guard education counselor—to find out if she could do anything to correct Countryman's records to reflect that she attended and passed the fine-arts class. Specifically, Schofield, on behalf of Countryman, wanted to find out if the National Guard could make an exception to the general rule and allow the requested tuition assistance to be used for the fine-arts class. But Quick informed Schofield that tuition assistance must be requested for a specific class prior to the start of the semester. As a result, Countryman was required to pay recoupment to the National Guard for the math course. Schofield also attempted to secure a grant for Countryman from the school to pay for the course, but her request was denied.

In 2015, Countryman contacted Schofield again regarding tuition assistance for the fine-arts course. This time, Schofield contacted the school's new associate vice president about the situation, and he agreed to grant a scholarship to Countryman to pay for the course. As a result of the scholarship, Countryman was able to enroll in the next semester to finish her degree in human-resource administration. And to aid Countryman in receiving tuition assistance for the new semester, Schofield conducted an academic evaluation of her GoArmyEd records for her previous courses with St. Leo. In doing so, Schofield first noticed that some of the courses listed in Countryman's GoArmyEd records had invalid course numbers or titles. Schofield researched further and discovered that there were also grade discrepancies between Countryman's GoArmyEd records and her official St. Leo transcript. Then, on January 13, 2015, Schofield submitted a GoArmyEd "help desk ticket," explaining the issue because these discrepancies had to be corrected before Countryman could move forward with her degree. Schofield also provided the National Guard with an unofficial copy of Countryman's transcript.

Thomas Bolin—the National Guard's education service officer at the time—received Schofield's help desk ticket, began researching the situation, and noticed the discrepancies between Countryman's St. Leo transcript and the grades listed in the GoArmyEd system. Specifically, in auditing Countryman's records, Bolin discovered that some of Countryman's grades were incorrect in the GoArmyEd system. For example, in some instances, Countryman's transcript indicated that she made an F in a class, while her GoArmyEd records indicated that she made an A; and several classes in the GoArmyEd system did not appear on her transcript at all. Upon further investigation, Bolin learned that Countryman worked in the education office previously and that she entered her own grades into iMarc using her CAC card.⁴ And in Bolin's view, Countryman must have had full access to the iMarc system to do this. Ultimately, based on the failing grades found on Countryman's transcript (but not in the GoArmyEd system), Countryman owed recoupment to the National Guard for 10 courses, totaling $5,700. And according to Charles Haycraft, who was responsible for training Countryman when she worked at the National Guard's education office, there was no way to reconcile the discrepancies in Countryman's records other than to conclude that she entered incorrect grades to "just plain avoid[ ] ... recoupment."

Thereafter, on July 20, 2017, Countryman was charged, via indictment, with one count of computer theft based on the alleged act of altering her grades in the National Guard's computer network, so as to avoid repaying tuition assistance. On April 26, 2018, Countryman was reindicted for the same offense, and the new indictment contained a tolling provision that stated: "Pursuant to [ OCGA §] 17-3-2 (2),^{[5 ]} the Grand Jurors aforesaid also find that the aforementioned crime was unknown until on or about January 13, 2015." According to the new indictment, Countryman's offense was committed "on, about, and between the 28th day of July, 2007, and the 1st day of October, 2011."

Prior to trial, Countryman filed a plea in bar and motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging that the four-year statute of limitation that applied to her offense expired before the initial 2017 indictment was filed.⁶ Specifically, Countryman disputed the indictment's allegation that the crime was unknown until 2015, contending that actual knowledge of the alleged offense can be imputed to the State on July 11, 2013, at the latest, because the victim, the National Guard, was aware of the offense by that date. But following a hearing on the matter, the trial court rejected Countryman's arguments and denied the plea in bar. In its order, the court...