Man to serve up to 46 years for York crack house slaying
YORK — A central Pennsylvania man has been sentenced to 20 to 46 years in prison in the death of a man who authorities said complained about the quality of drugs he was sold in a York crack house.
Bruce Williams Jr., 19, of York was convicted of third-degree murder last summer in the November 2011 shooting death of Jesse Heverling, 32, of Dover.
Prosecutors said Heverling was gunned down for arguing with Williams about the quality of the crack cocaine he had purchased.
Williams, who was 17 at the time, was sentenced to 17 to 40 years on the murder count and a consecutive three to six years on a weapons charge. He said in court on Thursday that he was “sorry for the loss” of the victim.
Defense attorney Dawn Cutaia sought a sentence of 15 to 30 years, saying she wanted her client to be young enough when released to attempt to have a productive life.
“He may have done a very adult thing, but he is still a little kid,” she said.
Judge Richard Renn said he had to make a judgment about a defendant's character but had heard little to convince him that Williams was “a good person caught in bad circumstances.”
He cited the defendant's juvenile record, “significant” run-ins with the law and “antisocial” behavior while in prison.
Chief deputy prosecutor David Maisch said the juvenile system had given Williams a chance to turn himself around but he continued down a path that made him a danger to society.
“The system did not fail him,” Maisch said. “He failed the system.”
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.