Hearing continued for Connellsville mayoral candidate
The Connellsville mayoral candidate accused of allegedly running a chop shop had his preliminary hearing on Thursday continued until next week.
Joshua DeWitt, 27, of Connellsville was charged with owning / operating / conducting a chop shop; receiving stolen property; and conspiracy of owning / operating / conducting a chop shop and receiving stolen property. The charges were filed at 1:45 p.m. Monday before District Judge Ronald Haggerty Jr.
Information from the magisterial docket sheet reported the incident occurred on March 3, 2011, in Bullskin Township.
DeWitt initially was charged last year with owning / operating / conducting a chop shop along with his uncle, Rodney Francis Allen of Connellsville, and Dale Robert Naugle of Connellsville. The Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation Western Regional Auto Theft Task Force investigated the theft of a Ford F-150 pickup from Davies Ford.
The three men were accused of stripping the truck down for parts, which were recovered at Allen's garage in Bullskin Township.
The charges last year against DeWitt were dismissed. Allen and Naugle are awaiting trial in Fayette County Court of Common Pleas.
DeWitt is running a campaign against incumbent Connellsville Mayor Charles Matthews and candidate Gregory Lincoln on the Democratic ticket for the May 21 primary election.
He is free on $20,000 unsecured bond.
His new preliminary hearing date has been scheduled for 10:15 a.m. May 16 before Haggerty.
Mark Hofmann is a reporter for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at email@example.com or 724-626-3539.
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.