Man who sought photos of minor girls loses appeal
Meeker pleaded guilty to soliciting to obtain nude pictures
Trending
A Clearfield County man in prison for attempting to obtain photographs of minors has lost an appeal of his case in which he charged his lawyer with ineffectiveness for not filing pre-trial motions to dismiss the charges against him.
The defendant, Reed Eugene Meeker Jr., 43, of Osceola Mills eventually entered a guilty plea to a charge of criminal solicitation to obtain nude photos of minors.
He was sentenced to prison for a term of three to seven years to be followed by three years of probation.
Meeker is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution Fayette County.
The controversial part of Meeker's case is that he was referred for prosecution by a child predator "catcher group" consisting of adults posing as minor females.
The adults in the catcher group were not law enforcement officers.
According to a Superior Court opinion issued this week, the defendant was represented by an attorney throughout much of the pre-trial stage of his case but she withdrew from the case in January 2023 because Meeker failed to pay her.
On April 6, 2023, Meeker, acting as his own attorney -- but accompanied by a standby counsel from the Public Defender's office -- entered a guilty plea to the charge against him.
He was sentenced by Judge Paul E. Cherry on Sept. 29, 2023.
During that time period between April and September, Clearfield County President Judge Fredric Ammerman issued an opinion in which he ruled that the charge of unlawful contact with a minor required that the suspected child predator must have actually communicated with a minor, or law enforcement officer posing as a minor, to support the charges against him.
Ammerman questioned the charge being applicable if the alleged perpetrator was communicating only with an adult member of a predator catcher group.
Ammerman's decision eventually resulted in charges being dismissed in numerous cases.
Meeker in 2025 filed a petition contending his pre-trial lawyer was ineffective in her representation for not filing a petition seeking dismissal of the charge against him, noting his prosecution was initiated by a child predator group and that he did not communicate with a minor.
He argued his then-former attorney should have foreseen Ammerman's questioning of the law and should have filed a motion to dismiss based on the Ammerman opinion.
A Superior Court panel of Judges Victor P. Stabile, Alice B. Dubow and Correale F. Stevens on Wednesday dismissed Meeker's appeal pointing out lawyers "must be judged under the existing law at the time of (their) representation."
They noted Meeker's lawyer had withdrawn from the case at the time of Ammerman's opinion and the Superior Court opinion stated "counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to predict future developments or changes in the law."
Even if the Ammerman decision established precedent relevant to Meeker's case, his lawyers "cannot be found to be ineffective for failing to predict His Honor's ruling."
The Superior Court opinion also noted the Ammerman decision focused on cases where the suspect was charged with "unlawful contact with a minor."
Meeker's charge involving "criminal solicitation" was filed under a different section of law, the panel reported.
The opinion concluded "the precedent which (Meeker) contends prior counsel ought to have prognosticated does not support the motion he argues (his prior lawyer) ought to have filed."
Meeker can seek review of his case by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.