Convicted Greensburg sex offender fails to have designation lifted | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

Convicted Greensburg sex offender fails to have designation lifted

Rich Cholodofsky
1068755_web1_GavelNewN

The appeal of a convicted sex offender seeking to invalidate a ruling issued a decade ago that classified him as a sexually violent predator was dismissed.

Bilaal Abdulbadi Hale, 43, of Greensburg, contended he should no longer carry the sex offender designation and its accompanying requirement that he register his whereabouts with police for the remainder of his life. The appeal was based on a 2017 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that found sentencing and certain registration requirements for convicted sex offenders was unconstitutional but not retroactive to older cases.

Hale was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to serve two-to-five years in prison in 2006 for having sexual contact with a teen. A state appeals court originally upheld the conviction and sentence in 2009.

Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Tim Krieger ruled Wednesday that Hale’s latest appeal was filed years too late and that he has no jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Hale is currently serving a nine-to-18-year prison sentence, imposed in 2015, by Judge Meagan Bilik-DeFazio after he was convicted twice for failing to register as a sex offender.

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 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.