Appeal denied for Latrobe man convicted for 2016 murder |

Appeal denied for Latrobe man convicted for 2016 murder

Rich Cholodofsky
Sean Stipp | Tribune-Review
A judge denied the appeal of Colin P. Gearhart of Latrobe, who was convicted of third degree murder in the shooting death of Daniel McNerny in 2016.

A Westmoreland County judge on Tuesday rejected the appeal of a Latrobe man serving a 20-year prison sentence for the murder of a friend during a botched robbery.

Common Pleas Court Judge Meagan Bilik-DeFazio in a 39-page opinion found there was sufficient evidence to support the third-degree murder conviction against Colin Gearhart. Gearhart, 21, was one of three men convicted for the January 2016 shooting death of 20-year-old Daniel McNerny.

The prosecution contended Gearhart conspired with two friends to rob a Pittsburgh-area drug dealer who visited Gearhart’s home on St. Clair Street. The plot, according to authorities, was hatched as retribution for a verbal slight.

McNerny was shot and killed when he attempted to intervene in the robbery. He was not part of the plot nor was he it’s intended victim. Gearhart did not testify in his four-day trial in March, when his defense lawyer argued he was not a participant in the murder and that it was master-minded by two others. Prosecutors contended Gearhart was the person who lured the plot’s intended victim to Latrobe.

Zachary McGrath, 24, of Latrobe, the masked man police said fired the fatal shots, was convicted in January of first-degree murder and is serving a life prison sentence.

Austin Krinock, 21, of Johnstown, was convicted last year of second-degree murder and is serving a 34-year prison sentence. Prosecutors said Krinock was the man who pushed the retaliation and secured the gun that was used in the robbery.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.