Judge rejects plea bargain in child porn case
A Fayette County judge on Friday rejected a proposed plea bargain for a Connellsville man charged with possession of child pornography.
In July, Justin Porterfield, 22, of 123 W. Apple St., Apt. 4, entered guilty pleas to dissemination and possession of child pornography.
In exchange for the guilty plea, District Attorney Jack Heneks agreed to drop the dissemination charge and recommended a jail sentence of three months to a year, followed by five years of probation.
“The (DA) has, for some inexplicable reason, offered a plea which falls below all guideline ranges,” Judge John F. Wagner said.
Defense attorney Donna McClelland asked to withdraw the plea, meaning both charges will go forward for trial.
State police in Delaware County discovered three images of child pornography on Porterfield's computer during an online search on March 12, 2010. District Attorney Jack Heneks said about 37 videos depicting child pornography had been deleted, but investigators were able to retrieve them.
During a hearing, Porterfield admitted having the images on his computer.
McClelland said at that time that Porterfield was using a file-sharing program that allowed others to access the images from his computer after he downloaded them.
Lt. David Peifer, supervisor of the Delaware County Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, testified during an earlier hearing that he was working with a Delaware County grand jury that was investigating child pornography when he discovered the images on Porterfield's computer.
Porterfield remains free on $10,000 bond.
Mary Pickels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-5401 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.