A three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a state prison sentence imposed on a Tyrone man who was found guilty last year of violating provisions of a probationary sentence he was serving on charges of statutory sexual abuse.

Dante Malik Prigg, now 27, was sentenced on April 17, 2023, to a prison term of one to three years by Clearfield County Judge Paul M. Cherry after the judge determined he had committed several violations of his probation.

Prigg was required to report regularly to a probation officer, which, according to the charges against him, he did not do.

He was also supposed to complete a program through Project Point of Light, an agency that provides counseling, and he was to notify his probation officer within 72 hours of contact with law enforcement concerning new charges.

Prigg was initially arrested for having sexual contact with a minor.

It was alleged he met a 15-year-old girl while on a summer outing at Curwensville Lake in Pike Township, Clearfield County.

The two exchanged information and the next day, they met again and had a sexual encounter in his car.

According to the Superior Court opinion issued last Friday, Prigg pleaded guilty to charges of statutory sexual assault, dissemination of sexual material to a minor and two counts of corruption of a minor.

He was sentenced to a prison term of nine months to two years to be followed by two years of probation.

While serving the probationary part of his sentence — following the expiration of his parole — Prigg was charged with multiple violations of his initial sentence.

In April 2023, he was brought before the county judge, where it was determined those violations had occurred and he received the one- to three-year sentence.

The defense requested that the prison sentence be vacated and he be resentenced because the incidents that led to the revocation of his probation occurred prior to his placement on probation.

The Superior Court panel summed up the issue by noting, “(Prigg) concludes the court relied on an impermissible sentencing factor, and this court must vacate and remand for resentencing.”

“We disagree,” according to sentencing Judges Jack A. Panella, Megan King and John T. Bender.

The appeals court explained that the defense complaint involved the discretionary aspects of the sentence.

The panel then pointed out that discretionary aspects of a judge’s sentence cannot be challenged unless the defense has raised an objection at the time of sentencing or in a petition filed within 10 days of sentencing.

The theory is that the trial judge should be given a chance to correct a mistake, if he made one.

The panel explained that it is improper to raise an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence for the first time in the appeals court.

“Therefore, (Prigg) failed to properly preserve his sentencing challenge orally at the revocation hearing,” the appeals court stated.

It concluded the defense argument was legally waived and the judge’s sentence stands.

Prigg is serving his sentence in the State Correctional Institution Forest in Marienville.