PA: Superior Court finds no vindictiveness by judge, Bedford DA

Source: 2/16/23

An opinion handed down by the Pennsylvania Superior Court this week has found that a Bedford County man failed to prove his new minimum sentence of 26.5 years on child abuse charges — more than double his original sentence for the crimes — was based on the “vindictivness” of the judge and district attorney.

Mark Allen _____, 53, who is serving his sentence in the State Correctional Institution at Laurel Highlands, sought to show that his new and much tougher sentence was unconstitutional because Bedford County authorities were upset his appeal was at least partially successful.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Superior Court finds no vindictiveness by judge without knowing the prior offense he committed before this one maybe it was or wasn’t justified. But 26.5 years for “for placing his hands on the shoulders of a 7-year-old girl and asking her if she had ever been kissed by a boy.” seems very excessive.

I have to wonder, what would this man have been sentenced to if he had actually kissed this girl? 100 years initially, then 200 on the, “non-vindictive” resentence?

How does a person get sentenced to more time, with fewer convictions? He gets one conviction vacated, and that warrants his sentence to be doubled? How much more time would he have gotten if he had had 2 convictions vacated…triple the original? Seems the more convictions he gets vacated, the more time he spends in prison.

Perhaps he should confess to a dozen or so other things? That should knock back his time enough to be home for Christmas!

Dude screwed himself when he said he would have tried to have sex with her if she hadn’t run away. Putting his hands on her shoulders and asking her if she had ever been kissed is inappropriate, but I don’t see it as criminal behavior.
A clear example of why you should never talk to cops.
Based on his own admission that he would have taken it a step further, I have to agree with the sentence. The guy seems to be a menace and a threat to young girls and should be off the streets. THAT is how you protect children, something the registry cannot do.

There’s more to this story, folks. Mark Prinkey served 71/2 years in prison for trying to have sex with a 10 year old girl in 1998. Judge Ling had no option but to sentence him to the mandatory minimum under Pennsylvania’s repeat offender law. That said, 25 years for putting his hands on the shoulders of a little girl is harsh, but there was still and underlying reason for the sentence. Sometimes this forum will post articles, without context, to garner sympathy for a registrant who had offended. That’s why its good to always do our own research. I’m about facts & truth…even if it makes some of us look bad.

This is a good example of why I encourage registrants to walk away from children they don’t know. The only reason why the judge threw the book at him was because of his prior child sex conviction. Even if Mark had only put his hands on the little girl’s shoulder, and asked her if she had ever rode a pony, nothing would have stopped the girl from “misinterpreting” that remark to be something sexual. Now who is the jury going to believe? The “innocent” little girl or the convicted sex offender with priors? I have zero trust in the criminal justice of America. For those who still believe in it, you can take your chances. But leave me out.

At least in Georgia, a sentence cannot be increased once the convicted person begins serving it. I’m not sure about federal or other states, but I would think the same would apply. If so, that would be a better appellate argument than vindictiveness.

Regarding this guy, I don’t know the extent of his history. But if he has priors and was on the registry, it’s just another example of how useless the registry is at reducing or preventing sex crime. Even accepting what’s reported as true and accurate (disclaimer: I have a hard time accepting whatever the press says at face value), registration did absolutely nothing to prevent this incident. Registration had nothing to do with his identification while the matter was investigated. Registration had nothing to do with his prosecution, original sentencing, or revised sentence after his appeal, as a complete criminal record check is run on all defendants and sex crimes are not excluded from them.

I’m still waiting for someone to provide one single example of when the registry or any of its associated obligations and restrictions prevented a sex crime from occurring, or provided anything to the investigation of one. Until such an example can be found, it cannot be said that the registry has anything to do with the protection of society and children.

Of course there was no bias or vindictiveness! Just like the judge who told me “If you choose to go to trial and the jury convicts you I will make certain you get the maximum sentence for every single charge.”
Yep, no bias, no vindictiveness. 😒