A panel of Superior Court judges on Wednesday upheld the 21- to 42-year prison sentence imposed on a former Bellwood-Antis Middle School wrestling coach convicted of sexual offenses against two student-athletes.

Blair County Judge Daniel J. MiIliron, now retired, sentenced the former coach, Ryan L. Blazier, 22 months ago after a jury found him guilty of aggravated indecent assault, institutional sexual assault, witness intimidation, and corruption of minors with respect to each of his young male victims.

Blazier, 43, is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Greene.

Following his conviction and sentence, Blazier, through Altoona attorney Thomas M. Dickey, filed an appeal with the Superior Court, contending that the jury verdicts were contrary to the evidence and that the judge had erred in imposing harsh sentences in excess of the aggravated range recommended by the state sentencing guidelines.

Dickey also argued that Blazier, who denied any wrongdoing with respect to his relationship with the youth, did not receive a fair trial because the judge refused to allow the defense access to counseling records of one of the young victims.

The defense contended that access to the counseling records was necessary to cross-examine the victim.

The Superior Court panel that included Judges John T. Bender, Daniel D. McCaffery and Correale F. Stevens, rejected the defense arguments that the verdicts were against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence by noting that the objections were not specific enough and did not explain in detail how the evidence was lacking from a legal standpoint.

The panel then focused on the defense arguments that the sentences were too harsh and that Blazier did not receive a fair trial.

The state sentencing code gives trial court judges wide discretion when it comes to sentencing, the Superior Court opinion explained.

“Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion,” the opinion explained.

In imposing a sentence, a judge must review a variety of issues that include protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, the impacts on the victims and the community and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant, opinion continued.

In reviewing the Blazier sentence, the panel noted that testimony showed Blazier had used his position as a wrestling coach “to sexually assault two minor victims, who were students entrusted to his care and tutelage.”

He took advantage of the 13-year-olds while in the confines of their school, and, the opinion stated, he threatened to harm them and their families if they revealed his sexual abuse that occurred as he taught them wrestling skills.

Milliron considered all of the required factors when sentencing Blazier.

The judge made reference to Blazier’s lack of remorse, but he made clear that the most compelling factor in his sentencing was “the permanent destruction of the victims’ lives.”

Their lives had been “shattered” by the coach’s actions, Milliron stated.

Blazier, the judge stated, “stole their childhood, extinguished the light of their youth and their innocence to which every child is entitled.”

“Our review … in this case demonstrates that the trial court reasonably deviated from the guideline ranges and acted within its discretion in running the sentences consecutively,” according to the opinion written by Stevens.

The appeals court also addressed the defense argument that Milliron erred in not permitting access to the counseling records of one of the victims.

Million ruled the records were confidential, and the appeals court opinion supported that decision, referring to a 1972 state law that bars the access to records maintained by a psychologist or psychiatrist without permission of the patient.

The Superior Court in past rulings stated “the confidential relations and communications between a psychologist or psychiatrist and his client shall be on the same basis as those provided or prescribed by law between an attorney and client,” the opinion reported.

The defense in its brief offered no argument to challenge the judge’s decision barring access to the youth’s mental health record, the opinion noted.

“We thus find the trial court did not err in denying (Blazier’s) motion to compel disclosure of such records,” it concluded.

The defense has the option of seeking Supreme Court review of the panel’s dismissal of Blazier’s appeals.