A Clearfield County man who argued before the Pennsylvania Superior Court that the judge in his case imposed an excessive sentence on criminal trespass charges has lost his appeal, according to a ruling handed down Wednesday.

Robert F. Runyon Jr., 42, of DuBois, contended in his appeal that Clearfield County President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman sentenced him to an overall term of imprisonment of one to three years on charges of criminal trespass and conspiracy to commit criminal trespass for an incident that occurred on Jan. 15, 2023.

He received a sentence of six months to three years on the trespass charge and one year to three years on the conspiracy charge.

The sentences were to run concurrently, or at the same time.

Theft charges were withdrawn, according to court records.

Runyon, through attorney Fabio D. Fortunato of DuBois, in his appeal of Ammerman’s sentence, contended he entered a negotiated plea that called for a minimum sentence of six months as opposed to the year he received.

The charges maintained Runyon conspired with two others, Stephen Anthony Ladd, 30, and Erica Curran, 33, to enter a DuBois home that was up for sale.

Police alleged the group stole firearms, televisions, alcohol, dinnerware and trading cards.

During the investigation, a search warrant was served for Runyon’s home where many stolen items were found.

According to the Superior Court, Runyon admitted to entering the home at least twice and stealing items.

The defense argued before the Superior Court that the judge’s overall minimum sentence of one year exceeded the sentence agreed upon in a plea bargain that Runyon had accepted.

That meant, according to the defense, Runyon did not “knowingly or voluntarily” consent to the sentence.

Because the judge’s sentence exceeded the agreed-upon minimum, Runyon should have been permitted to withdraw his plea, the defense contended.

A Superior Court panel that included Judges Judith F. Olson, Megan King and Timika Lane rejected the defense argument.

The appeals court judges indicated in their opinion that Ammerman never accepted or rejected the plea agreement — although the defense claimed that by accepting Runyon’s guilty plea the court was bound by the terms of the plea agreement.

If his intent was to reject the agreement, the judge should have given Runyon the opportunity to withdraw his plea, which was not done, the defense argued.

However, the Superior Court opinion written by Lane explained that an acceptance of a plea agreement by a trial judge “does not legally preclude (the judge) from imposing a harsher sentence than agreed to by the parties.”

When a harsher sentence is imposed, the trial court must give the defendant the option to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.

Therefore, the harsher overall sentence on its face is not illegal in the Runyon case because neither of his sentences exceeded the maximum sentences applicable to his crimes, the appeals court explained.

The Superior Court then shifted the burden to Runyon for failing to object to the trial court’s deviation from the alleged plea agreement.

Runyon finally did file a petition protesting what occurred but it was declared untimely by the Superior Court.

“We (the panel) thus conclude that Runyon’s issues are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,” the Superior Court panel stated.

Runyon’s attorney could not be reached for comment.

Court records indicate the co-conspirators received lesser sentences.

Ladd was sentenced to a term of six months to a year, plus three years probation, and Curran received 127 days to one year, to be followed by two years probation on the charges.

Runyon can seek review of his case by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.