Greensburg woman withdraws plea in theft case
A Greensburg woman withdrew a no contest plea on Tuesday and will head to trial on accusations that she embezzled more than $103,000 from her former employer.
Lynne F. Rain, 64, was scheduled for sentencing Tuesday before Judge John Blahovec when her attorney requested to withdraw the plea.
She is charged with two counts of theft.
Rain “vehemently” denies the charges and would not be able to repay the amount allegedly taken from All Star Therapies and All Serve Therapies in Penn Township, Blahovec said.
Rain has also said she doesn't want to go to jail, according to the judge.
If she enters a plea or is found guilty of the charge, “I'd put her in jail because the guidelines say so,” Blahovec said.
Rain pleaded no contest in October. Such a plea is not an admission of guilt but it is treated as such for purposes of sentencing.
Police allege that Rain made improper payments to herself while working as a receptionist and bookkeeper for the companies,
Rain is accused of stealing more than $76,000 by paying herself twice through direct deposits and direct-payment checks. In addition, she is accused of writing unauthorized company checks to herself for nearly $27,000.
The thefts allegedly occurred during a four-year period that ended in 2009.
Company officials have said Rain was fired in 2009 for insubordination, and financial irregularities were discovered afterward. They have asked that she be sentenced to a prison term.
Renatta Signorini is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-837-5374 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.