A former truck driver from Everett who is serving a prison term of 70 to 140 years for the sexual abuse of two of his children has failed to convince a Superior Court panel that his defense attorney made multiple errors that led to his conviction.

The panel, including Judges Alice B. Dubow, Timika Lane and Correale Stevens, ruled Monday that William A. Cavanaugh had failed to show his trial counsel was “ineffective” during his two-day trial in 2019.

This was Cavanaugh’s second appearance before the Superior Court since he was convicted by a jury of rape of a child less than 13 years of age, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years of age, corruption of minors and indecent assault of children.

In 2021, he appealed the lengthy sentence imposed by Bedford County Judge Travis W. Livengood, contending it was excessive and a de facto life sentence.

The court found that the county judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing the sentence.

Cavanaugh remains incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution in Camp Hill.

The Superior Court in its Monday opinion reported that Cavanaugh, now 60, was the father of six children.

Between 2012 and 2014, he committed “numerous sexual offenses” against two of them.

During his trial, an older sibling also testified that he had abused her.

In 2022, attorney Grant J. Shonesky of Somerset filed a post-conviction petition contending that Cavanaugh’s trial attorney was ineffective.

In the petition, Cavanaugh stated his trial attorney failed to inform him that he had a right to call character witnesses, and that his attorney failed to follow through on contacting other potential witnesses.

Cavanaugh argued his trial attorney “failed to adequately prepare the case for trial and that he was ineffective in his cross examination of one of the child victims.”

He also charged that his counsel failed to object when the prosecutor used the word “rape” in his closing argument — referring to the abuse of the older child who was a prosecution witness during the trial.

The Superior Court addressed each of the points raised by the defense.

For instance, in reviewing possible character and other witnesses who were allegedly not called to testify during the trial, the defense failed to show how such testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial, according to the Superior Court opinion.

As to Cavanaugh’s arguments that trial counsel failed to adequately meet with him during the pretrial stages of the case, the Superior Court stated he “does not identify what additional, relevant information (he) could have obtained.”

“Cavanaugh vaguely refers to ‘family dynamics’ and the family home as the site of the abuse, but fails to explain what issues, based on the alleged information, trial counsel could have raised,” the panel stated.

It also addressed the issue that the trial attorney was ineffective in his cross examination of the child victim.

Livengood, in ruling on this issue, noted both victims in the trial testified at length and trial counsel in fact did question them as to “particular dates, places, and circumstances of the alleged abuse.”

“Based on our review, we conclude the record supports (Livengood’s) ruling,” the panel stated.

The trial judge also found the use of the word “rape” with respect to Cavanaugh’s abuse of the older child who testified during the trial was “fair comment during closing argument.

“We (the panel) do not conclude that the Commonwealth’s closing argument upholding statements alone caused the jurors to form in their minds a fixed bias and hostility towards

Cavanaugh which would have prevented them from properly weighing the evidence and rendering a true verdict,” according to the Superior Court judges.

The panel concluded its review by affirming Livengood’s opinion that Cavanaugh’s claims were meritless.