The Pennsylvania Superior Court has rejected an argument by a Clearfield County man that his sentence for possession of child pornography was excessive — when compared with sentences imposed for the same offenses in prior cases.

A three judge panel of the appeals court has ruled that Abram Stewart Fry, 20, of Houtzdale, has failed to raise a “substantial question of law” by contending that his 10-to-30-year prison sentence imposed in 2024 by Clearfield County Judge Paul E. Cherry was an outlier sentence in comparison with past cases.

Fry was represented in his appeal by Jendi Nicole Schwab of the Clearfield County Public Defender’s Office.

The question before the panel was, “Did the trial court err or otherwise abuse its discretion in refusing to consider sentences of other similar offenders in the same county in fashioning his sentence?”

In an opinion issued late last week, Judge Timika Lane ruled that the Fry defense filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court.

The opinion, joined by judges Anne E. Lazarus and Mary Jane Bowes, concluded that Fry was in essence challenging the discretionary aspects of the judge’s sentence and that issues raised by such an appeal were properly preserved at sentencing, or in a motion to modify the sentence.

Yet another question posed by the appeals court was whether the Fry defense raised a substantial question of law.

That meant the appeal had to focus on whether the sentence was inconsistent with the sentencing code or the “fundamental norms” of the sentencing process.

The opinion explained that a defendant’s sentence must be “individualized,” taking into consideration a defendant’s character and background.

Citing a precedential case, the Superior Court opinion explained that a sentencing judge is not required to impose similar sentences as were imposed in prior similar cases, and noted also the sentencing judge is not required to impose similar sentences on different defendants for violations of the same offenses.

“Fry argued only that the lower court’s refusal to consider similar sentences of similar offenders in the same county presented a substantial question,” the opinion stated.

“Our case law is clear, however, that the trial court’s refusal to consider the sentences of other defendants who committed similar offenses when calculating Fry’s sentence does not raise a substantial question,” according to the Superior Court opinion.

“Consequently, we conclude that Fry has failed to raise a substantial question for our review,” the opinion stated.

Fry presently is serving his sentence, which also includes a year of probation upon his release, in the State Correctional Institution Pine Grove located in Indiana County.

The appeals court opinion stated that an investigation into Fry began in 2024 when the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office received tips from two electronic service providers that possible child pornography was being downloaded.

The Pennsylvania Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force traced the material to a Verizon account owned by Fry.

Agents of the AG’s office and state police executed search warrants at his home and examined his phones, eventually discovering 26 images of minors and 42 videos of child abuse.

He was charged with 50 counts of possession of child sexual abuse material.

In November 2024, he entered pleas to 20 counts of possession.

In further review of the case, the court did not classify Fry as a Sexually Violent Predator.

The court determined, and the Commonwealth agreed, that Fry did not meet the criteria of an SVP, or someone who is at risk for recidivism.

In summation of its decision in the Fry case, the Superior Court stated, “Pertinently, this Court has instructed that one of the fundamental norms in the sentencing process is that a defendant’s sentence be individualized.”