HARRISBURG, Pa. (EYT) — A state Superior Court panel recently affirmed the sentence of a Franklin man who was involved in a scheme that defrauded businesses and private residents in Venango County.

According to a Superior Court document filed on May 27, 2020, John E. Longendorfer, III, appealed the judgment of a sentence entered following his guilty plea to one count of theft by deception-false impression and two counts each of conspiracy and identity theft.

Longendorfer raised an ineffectiveness claim and argued that the trial court improperly denied his continuance requests and should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea.

After the Commonwealth filed charges against Longendorfer, the court appointed counsel. In July of 2018, Longendorfer filed a Motion to Proceed Pro Se/Waiver of Counsel.

The trial court did not immediately address the motion and instead scheduled Longendorfer’s trial for September 2018, stating that it would address the motion at jury selection.

On the day of jury selection, the court held a hearing on Longendorfer’s motion. Longendorfer told the court, “I want to do a plea bargain with the D.A. on my own. So, yes, I’ll represent myself.”

The court allowed Longendorfer to represent himself, and he subsequently pleaded guilty to the above-referenced charges. The court then sentenced him to seven to 15 years’ incarceration.

Longendorfer then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a motion to modify his sentence, both of which were denied.

According to the court documents, Longendorfer maintains that he was forced to plead guilty because of the alleged failure of his counsel, Attorney Jeri Bolton, to investigate and obtain exculpatory evidence.

However, according to the court decision, Longendorfer did not show good cause or exceptional circumstances to support the claim.

Longendorfer also claims that the trial court erred by denying his request for a continuance to obtain allegedly exculpatory evidence. He maintains the denial of the continuance had the effect of denying him his right to meaningful self-representation.

The court decision states that Longendorfer’s claim that he was “forced against his will” to enter into the plea agreement contradicts his statements in his written and oral guilty plea colloquies to the contrary.

It also notes he had not informed the court of the nature of the allegedly exculpatory evidence that he claims a continuance would have enabled him to obtain. In so doing, he failed to demonstrate in what manner he was unable to prepare his defense.

The court document also notes that although Longendorfer alleges that he asked the court for a continuance to obtain further evidence of his alleged innocence, he nonetheless decided to plead guilty, despite the court’s refusal to grant a continuance. The record shows that he willingly pleaded guilty. The record shows Longendorfer willingly moved forward with his plea rather than proceed with trial, despite not getting the continuance.

The Superior Court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

RELATED:

Multi-Agency Fraud Investigation in Venango County Leads to Nearly 200 Charges Against Two Men