Crespo

Barry Lee Crespo, a former youth counselor who is serving a long jail term for the sexual abuse of one of his young clients, has failed to show that a revised sentence imposed in 2023 was based on the “vindictiveness” of the judge, according to an opinion issued Monday by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Crespo, 60, is serving a prison term of nine to 20 years on charges of corruption of minors, indecent assault, aggravated indecent assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful contact with a minor and statutory sexual assault.

The charges were originally filed against Crespo in 2008 when the child he was counseling was 14 years old.

He was convicted of the offenses in a trial held in 2009 and his initial sentence was 20 to 40 years in a state correctional facility.

The Superior Court opinion issued by Judges Deborah A. Kunselman, Megan Sullivan and Correale F. Stevens explained the statute under which Crespo was sentenced included a mandatory minimum that was eventually found to be unconstitutional.

On May 1, 2023, Judge Edward E. Guido of Cumberland County imposed a much lesser sentence of nine to 20 years, but Crespo, in his appeal to the new sentence, pointed out that the judge, in the original sentence, imposed a concurrent sentence of 1.5 years to five years on count nine – corruption of minors.

A concurrent sentence means the term is served at the same time as the sentence for the other offenses.

In the new sentence, the jail term on the corruption charge was made consecutive to, or in addition to, the sentences for the other offenses.

The Superior Court panel summed up Crespo’s appeal by concluding that he was upset with his appeals attorneys for not arguing that the sentence on the corruption charge served as an increase to his original sentence.

His attorneys, Crespo concluded, were ineffective for not arguing that the consecutive sentence on the corruption charge carried with it a “presumption of vindictiveness” on the part of the judge.

“We disagree,” the appeals court opinion stated.

Crespo in his appeal failed to properly address the factors that legally would support a claim that his attorneys were ineffective for not raising the vindictiveness issue, the opinion emphasized.

The panel concluded, “Crespo merely makes disparaging comments regarding their failure to raise the issue he believed warranted relief.”

“Because Crespo makes no legal argument, we will not consider his ineffectiveness claims further,” the opinion, written by Kunselman, stated.

“Indeed, any claim of judicial vindictiveness would fail given that, on resentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of less than one-half of the length of Crespo’s

20- to 40-year aggregate,” the panel stated.

It noted that the trial court explained his greatly reduced sentence — the judge was impressed by how Crespo “has grown” during his many years behind bars.

In his presentation during the resentencing hearing Crespo accepted responsibility for his actions and, according to the judge, “exhibited true remorse.”

The resentencing judge commented, “The Court took account of the substantial evidence presented in Crespo’s favor. However, the Court could not overlook the severity of the actions that resulted in his convictions.

“He committed the acts while he was employed as a caseworker with the Youth Advocacy Program. His job was to help troubled teenagers.

“He was in a position of trust. Instead of helping the victim, he took advantage of her when she was most vulnerable,” cited the Superior Court panel in siding with the resentencing judge.

“The sentences were not the results of vindictiveness,” Judge Guido stated in commenting on Crespo’s appeal.

Monday’s Superior Court opinion ended with the comment that “even if Crespo had properly argued his ineffectiveness claim in his appeal, it would fail.”

Crespo remains incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution Mahanoy, Schuylkill County.