A Lancaster man who continues to dispute a 30- to 90-day jail sentence on a summary harassment charge imposed because of a fight with a relative at a summer home in Huntingdon County has lost his appeal yet again, according to a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision issued Monday.

Huntingdon County Judge George N. Zanic in December 2023 sentenced Jabez Luis Abreu, 35, to pay a fine of $250 and serve a short jail term after finding the defendant guilty of a summary harassment charge that occurred on Memorial Day weekend 2022.

Family and friends had gathered at a summer home in Penn Township, Huntingdon County, to celebrate Memorial Day and a family member’s birthday.

According to the judge’s opinion during an earlier appeal of the case, Abreu was in a bad mood that day and refused to go with the group for an afternoon of boating and swimming at nearby Lake Raystown.

Upon their return, it was observed Abreu had been drinking.

He then began yelling and got “in the face” of a relative, who pushed him.

A melee ensued with Agreu putting a “headlock” or “chokehold” on the relative.

The relative eventually freed himself after the struggle went into a glass door and furniture.

Abreu filed an appeal with the Superior Court, which upheld his conviction and jail term.

The appellate court concluded that even though the relative initially pushed Abreu, his response of placing the relative in a chokehold “far exceeded the amount of force needed to repel the attack.”

Abreu then filed a post-conviction petition contending his trial lawyer was ineffective in his defense, arguing the lawyer failed to give a closing argument and also failed to object when the prosecutor “mischaracterized” what occurred by stating Abreu placed his relative in a chokehold as opposed to a headlock.

The sentencing judge dismissed the post-conviction petition, and Abreu again appealed to the Superior Court.

Appeals Court Judges Victor P. Stabile, Mary Murray and Kate Ford Elliott on Monday affirmed Zanic’s order of May 1, 2025.

Addressing the complaint that his trial lawyer erred by not delivering a closing argument, the panel stated Abreu “fails to explain how the lack of closing argument prejudiced him in this case.”

Two eyewitnesses reported that Abreu placed his relative in a headlock — or chokehold — and the trial court and the judge found the eyewitnesses “credible” and Abreu “not credible,” the opinion stated.

Addressing Abreu’s second issue (the prosecutor’s use of the word chokehold), the panel stated, “Accepting as accurate (Abreu’s) distinction between a headlock and a chokehold, he fails to explain why the former does not meet the definition of harassment.”

Harassment, the panel explained, includes “striking, shoving, kicking — subjecting another person to physical contact.”

Testimony, the opinion explained, indicated the victim was “struggling to catch his breath” after the incident.

The Superior Court panel indicated both forms of contact — putting someone in a headlock, or applying pressure to their neck — fall under the definition of harassment.

Abreu was represented by State College attorney Ronald McGaughlin.