Share This Page

Greensburg woman reaches deal to repay 67 bad checks

| Friday, Sept. 27, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

A Greensburg woman reached a plea agreement with prosecutors on Thursday that will give her time to begin repaying more than $25,000 in bad checks she wrote in 2008, her attorney said.

Rahna E. Doerfler, 41, had been living out of state and turned herself in when she returned to the area and learned there was a warrant for her arrest, her attorney said.

State and Greensburg police charged Doerfler with writing bad checks between January and May of 2008 for sewing machines, groceries, a down payment on a car and other items in Westmoreland and Allegheny counties, according to court papers.

Doerfler passed 67 bad checks totaling $23,922 in the first half of 2008, according to a criminal complaint that state police filed that year. She wrote the checks from two bank accounts, authorities said.

Doerfler used one check to purchase two sewing machines and two thread packs for $5,287 and wrote another for $3,000 as a down payment on a 2003 Nissan Altima at a Hempfield car dealership, state police Trooper Jason Swope said.

Greensburg police charged her with writing about $2,200 worth of bad checks to a local boutique.

Under the terms of the agreement, she will plead guilty to writing bad checks, assistant public defender Anthony Bompiani said.

A county judge must accept the agreement before it can take effect.

“It's going to be a probation case, but a time frame hasn't been established yet,” Bompiani said. “The goal is to get back the restitution.”

Bompiani said Doerfler had been living in the West and was unaware that she was wanted by local authorities.

“It's not something she's running from,” he added.

She remains free on $10,000 unsecured bond.

Bob Stiles is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-836-6622 or bstiles@tribweb.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 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.