A former Johnstown man who is serving a prison sentence of 16 to 32 years for trafficking fentanyl in Blair County has failed to convince the Pennsylvania Superior Court that his sentence was excessive and that he did not receive a fair trial.

John Anthony Watts, 37, is presently serving his lengthy sentence in the State Correctional Institution in Somerset County on charges of possession with intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, criminal use of a communications facility and possession of drug paraphernalia.

State police arrested Watts and charged him with providing large amounts of fentanyl to a police confidential informant on three occasions: Jan. 27, 2022, outside an Altoona hotel; Feb. 7, 2022, in the parking lot of an Altoona lounge; and Feb. 18, 2022, in the parking lot of a restaurant in Ebensburg.

Each of the transactions between Watts and the informant was monitored by state police.

The transactions were joined for trial before a Blair County jury even though one of the buys occurred in Ebensburg, Cambria County.

The jury convicted Watts on all counts, and he was sentenced by Judge Jackie Bernard.

The unique aspect of the Watts case is that the confidential informant who made the purchases of the drugs did not appear for trial and Watts’ appeal challenged his convictions — the defense noting that there was “no direct testimony concerning any drug transaction between the confidential informant and Watts.”

Hollidaysburg attorney Phillip O. Robertson, representing Watts on appeal, argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was thus insufficient to support the jury’s decision and the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.

The defense also complained that Bernard erred when she sentenced Watts consecutively rather than concurrently for each sale.

The defense stated that at most Watts should have received a sentence of eight to 16 years, contending that even though there were three sales, they should all be considered one continuous event.

Finally, the defense contended the judge failed to consider mitigating factors, or facts that would reduce the seriousness of the offenses, such as Watts’ impoverished childhood.

The prosecution’s case that was presented to the jury was based on circumstantial evidence and the actions by law enforcement in monitoring the events that led to each transaction between the informant and Watts.

Watts, for instance, was contacted via messages through Snapchat and video calls.

The Superior Court in its opinion handed down last Friday explained that Watts during the calls would direct the informant to go to different venues where the exchange of money for drugs took place.

Police monitored each of the transactions and were able to identify Watts as the person who met with the informant.

“Police searched the CI’s person and vehicle just before he traveled to each of the three meeting locations and had the CI under constant surveillance,” the Superior Court panel reviewing the appeal stated in its opinion.

Watts was identified as the person who met with the CI on each occasion, and the opinion pointed out he has “conspicuous tattoos” that confirmed his identity, the appeals court stated.

After each meeting with Watts, the CI brought police fentanyl.

Superior Court Judges Victor P. Stabile, Mary P. Murray and Jill Black concluded there was enough evidence to determine that Watts “on three occasions possessed and delivered a controlled substance to the CI.”

The panel upheld Bernard’s dismissal of the defense challenges that the evidence was insufficient to convict Watts.

Bernard in her opinion stated that while Watts was with another individual for one of the transactions, “in all three buys from the CI Watts was the constant, fixed value.”

And she noted the buy on that one occasion was arranged through Snapchat using Watts’ “unique identifier, Vampin Sosa.”

As to the defense argument that Watts’ three drug sales should be merged for sentencing as “one criminal episode,” the appeals court panel agreed with Bernard that each of the three convictions was based on “separate and distinct criminal acts, different communications and arrangements … different delivery dates … different meeting locations … different drug packaging … different prerecorded state-issued buy funds.”

Bernard also ruled that the defense charge that the court failed to consider mitigating circumstances lacked merit.

Watts had a tough childhood and grew up without a father. His mother spent time behind bars and he spent time in a foster home.

His mother testified how her life was changed by her incarceration and how she now has a job with the State of New York.

In explaining her lengthy sentence, the Blair judge stated Watts received consecutive sentences “because he is not entitled to a volume discount for the sale of fentanyl.”

“The trial court believes this sentence is appropriate to address the gravity of the offenses, to protect the public, and also to address (Watts’) rehabilitative needs,” Bernard stated.

She summed up by saying Watts had shown no remorse for his actions, and that as a father of seven children, he has taken no responsibility for their upkeep.

He has relied on the “kindness and generosity” of his mother, her husband and a grandmother to provide for the needs of his children, the judge continued.

The Superior Court concluded Bernard “expressly considered all the mitigating evidence Watts presented.”

The sentence imposed, the panel stated, “should not be disturbed.”