Trio accused of squatting in vacant Charleroi apartment
Three people will stand trial on drug charges after they were allegedly found squatting in a vacant Charleroi apartment.
Laurel McFeely, 39, of 1011 McKean Ave., Jennifer Wells, 30, of 717 8th St., both of Charleroi, and William Sezawich, 35, of 567 Bow St., Stockdale, appeared in court Thursday.
McFeely and Wells both waived their rights to preliminary hearings before Magisterial District Judge Larry Hopkins in Charleroi. McFeely was charged with a felony count of criminal trespass and six misdemeanor counts of use/possession of drug paraphernalia. Wells was charged with a felony count of criminal trespass and five misdemeanor counts of use/possession of drug paraphernalia.
Sezawich was held for court by Hopkins following a hearing on a felony count of criminal trespass and five counts of use/possession of drug paraphernalia.
The three were charged after Charleroi Regional Police were called Dec. 15 to an apartment at 726 Lincoln Ave. The landlord called police after she saw one of the doors broken down and heard people inside, according to an affidavit of probable cause. The apartment was vacant and all of the utilities were shut off, the landlord told police.
Sezawich reportedly told police he lived at the apartment, the complaint states. During a search, police allegedly found miscellaneous drug paraphernalia, including empty stamp bags of suspected heroin. A gallon jug inside the residence was full of urine, the affidavit states.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.