Ligonier Township man accused of assaulting officer working on plea deal, attorney says |

Ligonier Township man accused of assaulting officer working on plea deal, attorney says

Paul Peirce

The attorney for a Ligonier Township man accused of assaulting an off-duty Ligonier policeman last Dec. 22 said Friday his client is working on terms of a plea bargain agreement and is anxious to put the incident behind him.

Brad J. Steffey, 36, of Laughlintown, waived his right to a scheduled preliminary hearing before District Judge Denise Thiel on charges of aggravated assault, burglary, criminal trespass, simple assault and public drunkenness in connection with the alleged 3:45 a.m. incident at the borough residence of officer Brad Markle.

“We have a very rough outline of a plea agreement, but nothing has been formalized so I cannot comment further at this point,” said Steffey’s private attorney, Mike Ferguson of Latrobe.

“I can tell you that Brad is very remorseful over what happened and he’s taking full responsibility for what happened,” Ferguson said. “And he’s taken appropriate steps to address the issues that drove his unfortunate actions that night.”

Borough police allege Steffey was intoxicated when he entered Markle’s residence in the early morning hours Dec. 22. Police reported Markle was struck “several times” by Steffey as he attempted to subdue him after he found him.

Police said Steffey fled Markle’s home and was apprehended by police nearby in the vicinity of the 100 block of West Vincent Street.

Thiel ordered Steffey, who remains free on $5,000 bail, to appear before Common Pleas Court Judge Meagan Bilik-DeFazio April 4 for arraignment.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, [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.