Click here to subscribe today or Login.
State Superior Court on Wednesday struck down an embattled Wilkes-Barre towing-contractor’s sentencing appeal, possibly opening the door for him to begin serving county time.
Leo A. Glodzik III, 44, of Wilkes-Barre, was sentenced in July to three-to-12 months in Luzerne County Correctional Facility after a jury convicted him of theft by unlawful taking, but his appeal to the Superior Court has thus far kept him out of prison.
Glodzik worked as the city of Wilkes-Barre’s exclusive towing contractor for close to a decade before his arrest on May 31, 2013.
The arrest stemmed from allegations he stole what he believed to be $2,100 in seized drug money and tried to share part of the cash with a state trooper posing as a “dirty” officer.
The cash was bait money planted as part of an FBI sting operation.
Glodzik’s appeal challenged Judge Lesa S. Gelb’s sentencing order, objecting to her decision to exclude a prospective juror, her decision to allow a particular objection from prosecutors and the sufficiency of evidence leading to his conviction.
Superior Court Judges Jack A. Panella, Paula Francisco Ott and Senior Judge John L. Musmanno upheld the sentence Wednesday, dismissing each issue in a nine-page memorandum.
The document, penned by Panella, made short work of the juror complaint, stating plainly, “This issue has no merit.”
According to the memorandum, the judges found Gelb used appropriate discretion in dismissing the potential juror, who related to the court that she had a close relative facing charges and would find it difficult to judge another defendant.
Glodzik also claimed in his appeal that Gelb erred in sustaining an objection from prosecutors when he attempted to testify about a separate situation in which he did not steal money he had found in a car.
As evidence, Glodzik quoted a section of the trial’s transcript, the memorandum says, but failed to indicate where he objected to Gelb’s ruling.
Because Glodzik did not object, the Superior Court judges waived the issue.
Finally, Glodzik attempted in his appeal to show through his testimony that prosecutors did not prove he took the money from the car “with the intent to deprive the owner,” as the law requires.
The Superior Court rejected this position, saying Glodzik’s “self-serving reiteration of select testimony” does not address the entirety of the evidence presented, nor does it support his claim of insufficient evidence.
A message left Thursday afternoon with Glodzik’s attorney Joseph F. Sklarosky Sr. was not returned.
Glodzik is scheduled to go to trial April 20 in federal court on charges of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and tampering with a witness.