ShareThis Page
Youngwood man appealing summary conviction he yelled at sheriff’s deputies |

Youngwood man appealing summary conviction he yelled at sheriff’s deputies

Renatta Signorini
Renatta Signorini | Tribune-Review
Fredrick Brandt, 61, of Youngwood, was convicted of a disorderly conduct charge after testimony at a summary trial indicated that he yelled at sheriff’s deputies in October.

A Youngwood man who was convicted this month of summary disorderly conduct for yelling at Westmoreland County sheriff’s deputies is appealing the decision.

Fredrick G. Brandt, 61, filed an appeal this week in the county Court of Common Pleas. He was found guilty of the offense during a Feb. 6 summary trial. A summary count of harassment was dismissed.

An appeal hearing has not been scheduled.

A sheriff’s deputy and three witnesses testified that Brandt yelled obscenities aggressively at a group of deputies who were looking for a fugitive Oct. 5 near his home and threatened to assault them.

Brandt testified that he raised his voice so the group could hear him. He testified that he tried to embarrass one of the deputies because he was upset about the deputy’s testimony three days earlier against Brandt’s girlfriend, Patricia Fritz, a former chief deputy sheriff.

Brandt was ordered to pay $260.25 in costs and fines.

Fritz also is appealing her harassment conviction. A deputy testified during her summary trial that Fritz pushed and poked him during an August union grievance hearing at the courthouse.

Renatta Signorini is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Renatta at 724-837-5374, [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.