Judge rejects Hempfield man’s plea bargain in knife attack case | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

Judge rejects Hempfield man’s plea bargain in knife attack case

Rich Cholodofsky
1690511_web1_GavelNewN

A Westmoreland County judge on Wednesday rejected a proposed plea bargain for a Hempfield man charged with injuring a neighbor during a knife attack in June.

Vincente Alejo Andres, 34, was expected to plead guilty to aggravated assault and simple assault charges in return for nine to 23 months in jail.

Common Pleas Court Judge Meagan Bilik-DeFazio halted Wednesday’s hearing after she was told attack victim Ian Smail opposed the deal.

“The victim is in opposition and wants the opportunity to speak,” Assistant District Attorney Pete Flanigan said. “The victim’s injuries were really horrific and he was in surgery yesterday and as a result of these injuries he couldn’t be here today.”

Smail was punched in the head and face as many as 15 times and his face was slashed with a knife, police said.

Bilik-DeFazio ordered Andres, who is in jail in lieu of $100,000 bond, to appear next month for a status conference and to hear from Assistant District Attorney Allen Powanda, who negotiated terms of the proposed plea deal.

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.