Appeal denied in 2000 New Kensington manslaughter ruling
A Westmoreland County judge has denied an appeal by an Arnold man who claimed his manslaughter conviction should be overturned.
Earlier this month, Doyle Daniel Jr., 44, contended he was poorly represented at his 2001 murder trial.
On Wednesday, Judge John Blahovec said Daniel's appeal duplicated two other appeals he unsuccessfully argued during the past decade.
Blahovec said Daniel's latest appeal, which he filed without the aid of a lawyer, raised no new issues.
He is serving a nine- to 18-year prison sentence after being convicted of voluntary manslaughter for the Jan. 6, 2000 shooting of Edward “Lo” Jones at Sha Kei's Place in New Kensington.
Police said Daniel shot Jones six times at close range.
Jurors rejected the prosecution's theory that Daniel plotted Jones' killing and therefore should have been found guilty of first-degree murder.
Prosecutors argued during the trial that Daniel plotted to kill Jones, 22, in revenge for threats he allegedly made against his family.
The defense claimed Daniel acted in self-defense.
Jones was a well-known drug dealer in the New Kensington area who, four days earlier, threatened to assault Daniel's girlfriend, the defense argued at trial.
In his latest appeal, Daniel contended he received an inadequate defense because a number of potentially helpful witnesses were not called to testify.
Daniel also said evidence that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder was not properly argued to the jury.
Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6293 or email@example.com.
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.