A former Altoona man who is serving a state sentence of four to eight years in prison for failing to abide by requirements imposed under Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act has lost his bid for a shorter sentence, according to a decision issued late last week by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Robert Edward Walter, 34, was convicted last year on one count of failure to register and two counts of failure to comply with counseling requirements as outlined by SORNA.

Walter is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution Benner Township in Centre County.

The defendant, through Blair County attorney Tyler Rowles, appealed his conviction and sentence on the charges.

Walter, as an 18-year-old, was convicted of striking a 16-year-old girl and raping her while holding a knife to her neck as the couple was walking through the East End Ballfield.

He stated what he did was the “biggest mistake of his life.”

Walter served eight years in prison for his crimes and was classified as a Sexually Violent Predator under Megan’s Law.

Upon his release, he was to attend monthly counseling sessions, and was to register his address with the state police on a quarterly basis.

He received several years of counseling through Project Point of Light, a treatment program based in Clearfield County, and in 2021, Walter was discharged by the agency.

He also continued to register his address on Bell Avenue.

During that time, he rebuilt his life.

Police determined that while he continued to list his address on Bell Avenue, he had, in fact, moved in with a woman on the 1400 block of Third Avenue.

The couple had a child, and he was serving in the role of a father to her three children.

Charges were eventually filed against Walter for failing to register his new address — although he claimed he was not living in the Third Avenue home — and he was charged with not meeting the counseling requirements after being discharged from Project Point of Light.

He maintained that he enrolled with a Pittsburgh counseling agency that had an office in Johnstown known as Forensic Associates for Assessment, Consultation, Treatment (FAACT).

However, the agency indicated he was not enrolled in the program because he had paid only $260 of the required $300 enrollment fee.

Also during this time, Walter reported he was working six nights a week.

During his sentencing hearing before Blair County Judge Jackie Atherton Bernard, he said his new life was “literally work and kids.”

But, the judge emphasized the seriousness of Walter’s failures to abide by the requirements of Pennsylvania’s sexual offender laws.

“What more does it take for you to get the picture you have to comply?” she asked during his sentencing.

Blair County Assistant District Attorney Derek Elensky called for a minimum five years behind bars, noting that Walter’s case was one of “open defiance of the rules and Megan’s Law.”

Bernard imposed a sentence of four to eight years, to be followed by a year of re-entry supervision.

Walter and his attorney filed an appeal to the convictions and sentence, contending the evidence was not sufficient to support the charges against the defendant and that the sentence was “unduly harsh.”

Superior Court Judges Carolyn Nichols, Maria McLaughlin and Timika Lane reviewed the testimony by Altoona and state police and agreed the evidence was enough to support the charges that Walter failed to register his new address with authorities, noting law enforcement made 10 visits to the Third Avenue address to talk to Walter.

A spokesperson for FACCT also contradicted Walter’s story that he was enrolled in the counseling program.

The defense argued that the judge should have imposed concurrent sentences rather than consecutive sentences, which would have cut Walter’s time behind bars in half.

The Superior Court panel explained that in challenging the sentence, the defendant had to raise a “substantial question” of law, and it concluded “imposing consecutive as opposed to concurrent sentences is not viewed as raising a substantial question that would allow the granting of allowance of appeal.”

The panel cited a precedential case in which a judge had sentenced a defendant to forty consecutive sentences for forty offenses. That sentence, it was noted, raised the total sentence to an excessive level.

That was not the case with Walter, the appeals court stated.

“Appellant’s sentence does not, on its face, appear to be excessive in light of the criminal conduct at issue,” the court stated.

The defense can seek review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.