Trending
A DuBois man, Joseph George Sabatose, who has been on a roller coaster ride through the court system for the past decade, has lost his latest appeal to Pennsylvania Superior Court in which he claimed he was denied credit for time served in prison involving two criminal cases filed in Clearfield County.
Sabatose, 61, was charged in 2016 with criminal trespass that occurred on Dec. 20, 2015, and was initially sentenced by Judge Paul E. Cherry to a term of 90 days to one year in prison.
A second charge, theft by deception, was added in 2022. His sentence on that charge was initially 30 days to one year.
But Sabatose's situation became more complicated because of his many parole and probation violations.
Those violations resulted in several resentencing hearings.
For instance, he was resentenced on the criminal trespass charge to 146 days to one year, and then again to 120 days to one year, both to be followed by periods of probation.
In February 2022, he was charged with theft by deception which drew an additional prison sentence of 30 days to one year, to be followed by three years of probation.
On Aug. 28, 2023, he was again resentenced on the criminal trespass charge to one to five years and resentenced to six months to five years, to be served concurrently, on the theft charge.
On Jan. 17, 2024, Clearfield County Public Defender Jendi Schwab challenged, on Sabatose's behalf, the revocation sentences, contending they were illegal because he did not receive credit for all the time he already served in prison.
Cherry held a hearing on Feb. 27, 2024, concerning the alleged improper sentences imposed in August, but the judge concluded he gave Sabatose the credit for which he was entitled.
That time was reflected on a state commitment form.
Sabatose, acting as his own attorney, filed a petition contending that neither his attorney nor the judge in his case advised him of his right to appeal the decision denying a correction in the amount of time he had already served behind bars.
That petition was denied, and he then took his case to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
The Superior Court panel that included Judges Victor P. Stabile, Alice B. Dubow and Correale F. Stevens, in reviewing the case, determined that the appeal stemmed from the Aug. 28, 2023, decision in which Cherry resentenced Sabatose to a combined jail term of one year to five years for violating probation sentences on both offenses.
The review determined that Sabatose by law had until Sept. 27, 2024, to appeal the Aug. 28 sentence.
The appeals court determined Sabatose's post-conviction appeal to that sentence was not filed until Nov. 20, 2024, and therefore, was on its face, untimely.
There are exceptions to the court's timeliness rules.
A petitioner can claim that there was government interference that caused a late filing of a petition.
Or, the appeals court explained, facts that supported the filing of a petition were unknown until recently, thus causing a late filing.
The third exception is a new right recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Sabatose argued that his late filing was due to a "breakdown" of court procedure (because he was not informed of his right to appeal), and therefore
his right to appeal should be reinstated.
The opinion written by Stevens rejected Sabatose's contention, pointing out he presented the appeals court with "no coherent argument."
To support its decision, the Superior Court cited a 2014 Supreme Court case in which the state's highest court explained that it is not up to appellate court judges to prepare arguments for any party.
"Indeed, we are neither obliged, nor even particularly equipped, to develop an argument for a party.
"To do so places the court in conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter.
"The Court is left to guess at the actual complaint that is intended by the party."
The Superior Court opinion concluded that it affirmed Cherry's dismissal of Schwab's contention that Sabatose's sentence issued on Aug. 28, 2023, was illegal.