A prison term of one to five years imposed on a DuBois contractor who failed to complete two jobs after receiving down payments from homeowners has been affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The court last week concluded that Clearfield County Judge Paul E. Cherry adhered to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between the prosecution and the contractor, Leonard James Bloom Sr., 48.

That agreement, signed by Bloom on July 11, 2024, stated he was to receive a time-served sentence if he made restitution to the property owners prior to being sentenced on two counts of theft by deception, which occurred in late 2023 and early 2024.

The plea agreement, however, stated, “If restitution is not paid prior to sentencing, (Bloom) is to receive a minimum period of one year incarceration.”

The maximum was to be decided at the time of the sentence.

The Superior Court panel reviewing the sentence — Judges Deborah A. Kunselman, Megan Sullivan and Correale F. Stevens — stated, “The parties structured the plea in this fashion to incentivize Bloom to pay restitution prior to sentencing.”

Sentencing in the case was initially scheduled for Sept. 24, 2024, but the actual sentence was not imposed until March 17, 2025.

Between those dates, the judge postponed the hearing several times.

Bloom, who owed more than $6,000 in restitution, requested the September hearing be delayed so he could earn extra money to repay the homeowners.

He was charged in two cases.

The first occurred on Dec. 14, 2023, when he was hired to install a concrete driveway.

He accepted an advance of $2,053, but the investigation showed he did not use the money to buy materials or perform the work.

The second charge stemmed from a May 31, 2024, agreement to repair a metal roof and awning.

The customer gave him an advance payment of $4,000.

Again, he did not purchase materials or complete the job, the Superior Court pointed out.

The September hearing was rescheduled for Oct. 22, 2024. But before that hearing, Bloom had a heart attack and the October hearing was rescheduled for Feb. 18, 2025.

It was then changed to March 6, 2025, but due to Bloom’s hospitalization and medical treatment, it was again delayed until March 17.

Bloom brought $1,000 to the March sentencing hearing.

At this point, the defense again sought a continuance that would allow him to accumulate additional funds.

The court denied another time extension and sentenced him to concurrent terms of one- to five years’ incarceration.

Bloom then sought a modification of his sentences, suggesting he be placed on work release “so he could pay the restitution, or a delayed commitment.”

The judge refused further delay, noting, “this gentleman has been given approximately eight months to come up with restitution … And one thousand dollars is not going to cut it.”

Acting as his own attorney, Bloom appealed his sentence.

He contended the judge had abused his discretion by refusing to grant an additional continuance of his case.

He argued the sentence itself was problematic — he should have received a time-served sentence as opposed to a one-year minimum.

He challenged the judge’s refusal to give him more time to pay restitution.

The Superior Court’s response, written by Kunselman, stated, “It had been almost a year-and-a-half since the first theft. And Bloom encountered circumstances out of his control, which may have precluded him from earning money to repay restitution. He could have made partial payment but did not.”

The appeals court opinion pointed out he waited until the March 17 hearing to bring cash (the $1,000) instead of paying it ahead of time.

In another point made by the Superior Court, Bloom committed a second crime after initially being charged with the first offense.

The opinion quoted the prosecution, which argued, “There’s been excuse after excuse after excuse instead of working even to pay five, ten, fifteen dollars over this almost two-year period. He has done absolutely nothing.”

The opinion stated, “Based on Bloom’s failure to pay anything despite multiple continuances, the record clearly demonstrates the trial court’s judgment was not manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.”

The appeals court emphasized that Bloom had agreed that if he did not pay restitution in full, prior to sentencing, he would receive one year’s incarceration.

“Because he did not pay full restitution, the trial court sentenced Bloom in accordance with the plea agreement,” the opinion concluded.