Metro

The Pennsylvania Superior Court on Tuesday rejected an argument that a prison sentence for a probation violation imposed on a 61-year-old DuBois man was excessive and that it could mean he would be serving the rest of his life behind bars.

The Superior Court opinion written by Judge Timika Lane reported the problems for Richard William Smeal began in 2019 when he was being pursued by a Clearfield Borough police officer.

The officer, identified by the Superior Court as Sgt. Daniel Wayne Podilski, was on patrol when Smeal, riding a motorcycle, passed him along the road.

The officer knew Smeal was driving on a suspended license due to a conviction for driving under the influence and that the motorcycle carried an expired license.

The officer tried to initiate a traffic stop, but Smeal “accelerated to a high rate of speed” and proceeded through two red lights and down a one-way street — the wrong way.

He was eventually caught, and Clearfield County Judge Fredric J. Ammerman sentenced him to five years’ probation on charges of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer and driving on a suspended license.

However, the probationary sentence on the 2019 fleeing offense came up for review after Smeal in 2025 was convicted of the June 2024 robbery of a DuBois Burger King employee who was transporting the night receipts for deposit.

A jury convicted Smeal on July 2, 2025, of robbery, robbery (threat of bodily harm), receiving stolen property, terroristic threats and simple assault for the Burger King robbery.

The robbery charges initially resulted in a prison sentence of 47 months, less three days to 15 years, according to the Superior Court.

Because of the robbery conviction, Smeal’s probation on the 2019 fleeing charge was revoked and he was resentenced to a prison term of one to three years. The new sentence on the 2019 fleeing charge was to be served consecutively, or, in addition to, the sentences stemming from the robbery conviction.

He presently is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution in Somerset.

In its Tuesday opinion, the Superior Court explained “Smeal’s position was essentially that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing his underlying revocation sentence consecutively rather than concurrently (to be served at the same time) as his sentences for the robbery.”

Smeal, in his appeal to the new sentence on his fleeing case, argued that the trial court did not adequately consider the fact that he was 60 years old, “and that the imposition of his revocation sentence in this consecutive manner could potentially result in a life sentence.”

Superior Court Judges Lane, Anne E. Lazarus and Mary Jane Bowes stated in their Tuesday opinion that normally a lower court judge’s power to impose a sentence either consecutively or concurrently does not raise a substantial question on appeal.

But the exception to that rule comes if the aggregate sentence is “unduly harsh.”

Smeal, through his lawyer, did not address that aspect of the consecutive sentence during the resentencing hearing, the Superior Court opinion pointed out.

The “bald claim of excessiveness” is not enough to challenge the consecutive sentences imposed on Smeal, the appeals court clarified.

The Superior Court opinion went on to explain that the one-to-three-year revocation sentence was well below the maximum sentence that could have been imposed.

And, the opinion continued, the trial court had no reason to believe the consecutive sentence in Smeal’s case amounted to a life sentence.

Smeal was just 60 years old at the time of the revocation sentencing, and there was no indication within the presentence report that he suffered from any serious health problems, the Superior Court panel stressed.

The Superior Court panel summed up the case by concluding that the consecutive nature of the probation revocation sentence was “neither clearly unreasonable nor excessive.”

Smeal also benefited from a review of his sentence on the robbery charges.

State court records indicate that his initial minimum sentence on the 2024 robbery charge of almost four years was modified last December to a term of 22 months to eight years following a post-trial hearing in which Smeal’s lawyer argued the judge had mistakenly imposed consecutive terms for robbery (threat of bodily harm), robbery (taking property from another), theft, terroristic threats and other related charges, when, in fact, all of the charges should have been merged for sentencing purposes.

Ammerman agreed and resentenced Smeal for the robbery offenses.