HARRISBURG, Pa. (EYT) – A man who was sentenced in February of 2018 to nine to 18 years in state prison in Clarion County Court of Common Pleas recently lost his appeal to the state Superior Court.

On February 7, 2018, Clarion County President Judge James Arner sentenced 26-year-old Todd Ellis Carter, of Pittsburgh, a minimum of nine years and a maximum of 18 years after a jury convicted him of three felony counts of the manufacture, delivery, or possession with the intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance and two third-degree felony counts of the criminal use of a communication facility.

According to court documents, Carter’s legal team filed a Motion for Change of Venue/Jurisdiction for the initial trial, asserting that venue was improper because the Commonwealth did not allege that Carter had committed any acts in Clarion County constituting the offenses charged, but that motion was denied.

Carter’s legal team later filed a Post-Sentence Motion, seeking an acquittal or, in the alternative, reconsideration of the sentence imposed, which was also denied.

According to a memorandum filed on Monday, October 28, Carter contended the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Change of Venue/Jurisdiction because the Commonwealth failed to introduce evidence that he had committed any overt act in Clarion County and had accused him of acts committed solely in Allegheny County, entitling him to a new trial in Allegheny County.

The Superior Court memorandum notes that pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 102, “venue is proper in a county where either an element of an offense or a required result occurs.” In this case, following a hearing, the trial court found that the alleged drug transactions occurred in Allegheny County but that Joel Tanner Stark died from heroin toxicity in Clarion County, and the state Superior Court agreed.

The denial of the Post-Sentence Motion seeking acquittal or reconsideration of Carter’s sentence was also upheld. In the memorandum, the court notes that the Sentencing Code requires that any sentence of confinement be “consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant,” which also falls within the guidelines for sentencing adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.

In this case, Carter conceded that the trial court imposed a sentence that fell within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, but argued that in light of the discretion afforded a sentencing judge, the “appearance of prejudice” is sufficient to warrant new proceedings.

However, the judgement by the Superior court noted that while the court “recognized that the appearance of prejudice may be sufficient to warrant new proceedings,” any appearance of possible prejudice “must be substantial and supported by the record, otherwise it is tenuous and, ultimately, insufficient to warrant relief.”

The court concluded that Carter failed to substantiate any claim of apparent bias or prejudice by the trial court and affirmed the original judgement of sentence.

RELATED: Heroin Dealer Gets Lengthy Sentence in Clarion County Court