Blair County Judge Timothy M. Sullivan has rejected defense motions by an assistant public defender to dismiss two DUI cases from years ago that “merely fell through the cracks” of the court system, according to the Blair County District Attorney’s Office.

Assistant Public Defender Anthony H. Kattouf said this week that the two men entered guilty pleas in 2007 and 2008 but were never sentenced.

Joshua A. Snyder, last address in Tipton, entered a guilty plea to DUI high rate, third offense, and driving under suspension, on Nov. 27, 2007.

Judge Daniel J. Milliron deferred sentencing Snyder to give him the opportunity to apply for admission to Blair County’s Intermediate Punishment Program, which focuses on treatment rather than jail time for defendants.

Milliron’s order stated, “the defendant waives any prejudice as a result of a lack of speedy sentence to allow him to apply for IP Court, which he must do within 30 days of this date.”

That order, issued more than 10 years ago, is the last time there was any action taken in the Snyder case, until Jan. 19 of this year, when sentencing was finally scheduled.

Notice of the hearing was sent to the last address the county had for Snyder, but “there is no proof of actual service upon the defendant,” Sullivan reported in an opinion issued on Monday.

Snyder did not show up at the scheduled hearing and the judge continued the proceeding to give the defense attorney time to file a motion asking for dismissal of the case due to a violation of Snyder’s speedy sentencing rights.

A similar situation involved DUI suspect Joseph M. Quarello Jr. of Altoona.

Charges were filed by Altoona police against Quarello on July 15, 2008.

He entered a guilty plea on Nov. 3, 2008, to DUI first offense, but sentencing was deferred because there was a suppression motion that had to be heard involving another case against Quarello.

After the plea, Sullivan entered an order stating that Quarello had waived his right to a speedy sentencing and a presentence investigation and noted any of Blair County judges could serve as the sentencing judge in the case.

The suppression motion in the other case was resolved five days later, but sentencing for the DUI was not scheduled until Jan. 19 of this year — more than nine years later.

As with the Snyder case, Quarello did not appear for the January sentencing, and the judge reported: “but there was no proof of actual service or notice to the defendant.”

The assistant public defender filed a motion to dismiss in the Quarello case, also stating that sentencings are supposed to occur within 90 days of guilty pleas.

It, too, was denied by the judge.

Sullivan stated in his opinions that the appropriate remedy for violation of speedy sentencing rights is dismissal, but he stated, “the remedy does not automatically apply whenever a defendant is sentenced more than 90 days after conviction without good cause.”

The delay in these two cases was sufficient to “trigger additional inquiry,” Sullivan stated, but he ruled the defendants are not entitled to dismissal unless they can show they have been harmed by the delays.

He pointed out the only explanation for the lengthy delays provided by the prosecution was because the cases “merely fell through the cracks … there was clerical breakdown in the court’s operation.”

The reason for speedy trial and speedy sentencing rules is to protect people accused of crimes from “inexcusable or intentional delay” on the part of the court or the prosecution, Sullivan said.

Sullivan found there was no impropriety on the part of the court or the prosecution involving these two cases.

He stated that the defendants themselves have not come forth to assert violations of their speedy sentencing rights.

Neither defendant experienced “oppressive pretrial incarceration,” and the delay did not impact the defense, the judge found.

The only possible claim of prejudice by each defendant, the judge stated, is that he has “suffered unacceptable anxiety and concern over his possible sentence.”

But, Sullivan concluded, he cannot find prejudice at this time.

The judge has scheduled new sentencing dates for both Quarello and Snyder on Feb. 27.

Kattouf, the assistant public defender assigned to the cases, said he doesn’t even know if Quarello or Snyder can be found at this point.

He said the Snyder file is so old that the county destroyed it, but he is hopeful that he may be able to locate Quarello.

Then he said, “We may appeal these decisions (to the Superior Court).”