Winkelman

William Robert Winkelman, a former Clearfield County man serving a prison sentence of 12 to 24 years for his serial abuse of a woman, has lost his bid for a new trial, according to an opinion issued this week by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

A three-judge panel consisting of Mary Jane Bowes, Jack A. Panella and Correale F. Stevens rejected Winkelman’s argument that he was entitled to a new trial based on his claim of newly discovered evidence and ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.

The woman he was living with in March 2020 eventually sought help from state police Trooper Craig Hooven after Winkelman beat her for a third time.

The beatings, she reported, occurred between 2018 and 2020.

Winkelman was charged with dragging the woman through their apartment by her hair, hitting her head on a stove and other items, including a cedar chest, a love seat, the kitchen table, the bathroom mirror, a garbage can and a dryer.

She told the trooper he also punched her in the face, kicked her in the stomach and threatened her with a knife that she carried for her own self-protection.

The beatings, the woman reported to police, occurred on Dec. 25, 2018, Feb. 10, 2019, and Jan. 1, 2020.

In one of the three confrontations, she stated she suffered injuries to her neck and wrists, the victim concluded.

Winkelman faced a plethora of criminal charges.

A jury found him not guilty of rape but guilty of two counts of aggravated assault, strangulation, sexual assault, terroristic threats and unlawful restraint.

Clearfield County Judge Paul E. Cherry sentenced Winkelman on Jan. 24, 2002.

The judge, in passing sentence, ordered him to refrain from the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances.

He was also ordered to undergo counseling and attend The Batterer’s Program sponsored by Project Point of Light, an agency located in Clearfield County.

Winkelman, 53, is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution, Forest County.

A key element of the Commonwealth’s case included photographs of the injuries suffered by the victim.

Meanwhile, Winkelman is continuing to maintain his innocence, filing appeals with the Superior Court and with the U.S. District Court in Johnstown.

In his latest appeal before the Superior Court, Winkelman sought a new trial based on after-discovered evidence.

A new witness, identified as Jennifer Lee Vickers, in a sworn statement, indicated the victim in the case, while in a rehabilitation program with Vickers, told her Winkelman “never raped or beat the victim at any time.”

The Superior Court panel reviewing the case indicated that the newly discovered witness had grown up with Winkelman and was friends with a cousin of his.

The trial judge scheduled a hearing at which both Vickers and Winkelman’s trial attorney, Joshua S. Maines, testified.

The judge refused to allow Vickers’ statement into the record — because it was hearsay.

The court also ruled that the defense failed to show the alleged new evidence was of such a nature that it would result in a different verdict.

Winkelman, however, argued that the statement was important because it directly contradicted the victim’s trial testimony.

The court also took exception to Winkelman’s statement that Vickers was a “disinterested witness,” thus lending truth to her statement.

“(Winkelman’s) characterization of Ms. Vickers as a disinterested witness is unsupported by the evidence, as she testified that she grew up with Winkelman and was friends with his cousin,” the Superior Court opinion stated.

The Superior Court then noted that Winkelman “neglected to show how her statement would have resulted in a different verdict.”

The Superior Court opinion concluded Winkelman was “not entitled to relief on this basis.”

Winkelman’s other point of contention was that his attorney was ineffective for not calling Vickers as a witness at his trial.

But, as the Superior Court explained, the Winkelman trial was held in 2021, while the alleged statement by the victim did not occur until 2022 “while the direct appeal in this matter was pending.”

Winkelman’s contention that his trial attorney was ineffective on this point “is devoid of merit,” according to the Superior Court panel.