Trending
An attempt by a Clearfield man to withdraw his guilty plea to a charge of murdering his disabled mother was rejected by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in an opinion issued Friday.
David Michael Lombardo, 45, is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution in Houtzdale where he is serving a 20- to 40-year sentence imposed by Clearfield County Judge Fredric J. Ammerman.
Lombardo was charged with third-degree murder after an investigation into the death of Paula Lombardo, 69, who was found deceased in her bed on March 15, 2024.
Investigators came to the conclusion that the mother, who suffered from poor health, had died due to suffocation.
She lived in a Locust Street home that included her son and his wife, and the investigation revealed that the mother's caretakers had left the home during the afternoon hours of March 14.
Paula Lombardo was found deceased the next morning.
Lombardo's wife eventually indicated that David told her he killed his mother to gain access to a $5,000 insurance policy.
On March 4, 2025, Lombardo agreed to enter a guilty plea to third-degree murder, a killing that involves malice but not premeditation.
Because there was no agreement as to the sentence, Ammerman ordered a pre-sentence investigation.
During the time period between Lombardo's guilty plea and his scheduled sentencing date of April 7, 2025, Lombardo reported he had the opportunity to review the evidence compiled by the commonwealth, and he came to the conclusion that he could "demonstrate his innocence due to the lack of evidence."
Lombardo then petitioned the court to withdraw his guilty plea.
Prior to his sentencing, the judge heard his withdrawal motion, but denied it, and then immediately imposed the sentence.
Lombardo appealed the decision.
His question before the Superior Court was, "Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying (Lombardo's) pre-sentence request to withdraw his guilty plea?'"
Lombardo's review of the evidence, he determined, supported his claim of innocence that he did not cause his mother's death.
His mother, for instance, had "multiple serious medical conditions" that could have caused her death, he stated.
Also during his review of the evidence, he discovered the autopsy report stated the cause of her death was "undetermined."
And, he insisted, the DNA evidence provided to him by the prosecution excluded him as the killer.
In reviewing Lombardo's petition to withdraw his guilty plea, Superior Court Judges Maria McLaughlin,
Megan King and John T. Bender explained that trial courts have the discretion to grant a withdrawal of a guilty plea prior to sentencing, and that "such discretion is to be administered liberally in favor of the accused."
But, on the other hand, the standard for withdrawal also states the person seeking withdrawal must demonstrate "a fair and just reason to support withdrawal," the judges explained.
Ammerman, in his opinion concerning the withdrawal request, reported that during oral argument neither Lombardo nor his attorney specifically discussed possible defenses that may apply to his case -- such as the mother's alleged bad health, the autopsy report which concluded the cause of death was undetermined and the lack of DNA evidence.
The Ammerman opinion only noted that the defense made a "bald assertion of innocence" which did not demonstrate a "fair and just reason" to permit a withdrawal of Lombardo's guilty plea.
The Superior Court panel accepted Ammerman's conclusion that the defense in its argument never presented possible issues as to why Lombardo should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea but instead only presented an assertion of innocence, which was unacceptable.
Also, During his guilty plea, Lombardo stated he was satisfied with his lawyer, and at no time did he contend he lacked time to review the evidence against him, the Superior Court opinion reported.
The Superior Court thus ended its opinion by stating, the trial judge "did not err in finding that (Lombardo) failed to present a fair-and-just reason to withdraw his guilty plea."
Lombardo can seek review of the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.