The conviction and prison sentence imposed on a Clearfield man, who entered guilty pleas to charges of attempted statutory sexual assault and unlawful contact with a minor based on information from a child predator group, has been upheld in a Superior Court opinion issued late last week.

Glenn A. Goodrich, 61, is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution in Mercer County, where he is serving a sentence of 39 months to 20 years following the entry of his guilty pleas in July 2022.

Upon entering the pleas, the prosecution, as per the agreement, sought dismissal of six other offenses associated with his arrest.

Goodrich eventually contested his guilty pleas because his alleged 14-year-old victim turned out to be a 25-year-old man, Shafiq Blake, who belonged to Predator Catchers Pa.

Blake, while on an adult dating app “Grindr,” began conversing with Goodrich — relating that he was a 14-year-old who was “interested in older men.”

The two set up a meeting.

The Superior Court in its opinion indicated when the two met at an area motel, the alleged victim confronted Goodrich and “posted the encounter on YouTube.”

Police were also notified and Goodrich was charged with six felony counts and two misdemeanors.

The charges included solicitation of statutory aggravated indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, attempted aggravated indecent assault, solicitation of aggravated indecent assault, criminal use of a communication facility, attempted indecent assault, solicitation of indecent assault and solicitation of statutory sexual assault.

On July 14, 2022, Goodrich entered pleas to attempted statutory sexual assault and unlawful contact with a minor.

During his sentencing hearing, he stated his pleas were entered “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.”

His prison sentence, imposed by Judge Paul E. Cherry, is to be followed by six years of probation.

On appeal, Goodrich questioned the effectiveness of his attorney, noting that he negotiated a plea agreement and had him plead to a crime that “under the plain language of the law he did not commit.”

The Superior Court panel that included Judges Mary P. Murrary, Megan King and Timika Lane supported the ruling by Judge Cherry that the trial attorney was not ineffective in the way he handled the case.

The primary concern expressed by Goodrich to his attorney was the possible sentence he could receive if convicted of the multitude of charges against him.

The attorney explained that Goodrich made it clear to him he wanted to get the “best sentence possible to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison.”

The counsel testified he did not “want to make his client the ‘guinea pig’ for this type of case,” and he reasoned Goodrich would not do well before a jury in overcoming the charges against him.

The plea agreement resulted in six of the eight charges being dropped.

It was also noted in the Superior Court decision that the Goodrich case came before the court nine months prior to a decision by Clearfield County President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman, who, in an opinion involving another child predator case, questioned the validity of non-law enforcement groups posing as minors in their efforts to expose child sex abusers.

Following Ammerman’s opinion, the charges against the other individual were dropped, and the Clearfield County DA did not appeal the judge’s decision.

The Ammerman decision involved a case entitled Commonwealth v. Uncles.

Cherry, in reviewing the Goodrich case, noted that the Uncles decision “was not rendered until almost a year after Goodrich entered his plea of guilt.”

He went on to explain that “PredHunters PA and other similar investigatory vigilante child predator groups’ findings were permissible in many courts across central Pennsylvania.”

With that as a background, the trial judge found that the decision by Goodrich’s attorney to plead him to charges which never occurred had a “reasonable basis” that if convicted of all the charges, Goodrich would face a life sentence.

“The plea that was offered has withdrawn six of the eight charges, giving Goodrich a much better sentence than had he gone to trial and been convicted of all eight charges,” the trial judge concluded.

The Superior Court in its opinion did not comment on use of predator groups in thwarting child sexual abuse but instead focused on the circumstances surrounding the Goodrich case and his decision to plead in an effort to obtain a lower sentence.

The trial counsel contended he did not challenge the use of non-law enforcement personnel because in doing so would jeopardize the availability of the Commonwealth’s plea deals to dismiss six of the eight pending charges, including the dismissal of four felony counts.

The appeals court pointed out Goodrich did not deny that he attempted to solicit a minor and offered no defense to the other crimes.

It concluded the trial counsel had a “reasonable basis to not challenge the charge of unlawful contact with a minor and to permit Goodrich to enter his plea, which he entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.”

“Based on our review, we conclude the record supports the … court’s determination that Goodrich’s trial counsel has a reasonable basis to refrain from challenging the charge of unlawful contact with a minor and to instead permit Goodrich to enter his guilty plea, which he entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily,” according to the Superior court panel.