The attorney for a Port Allegany man imprisoned since May 24,
2004, on allegations of attempted murder – but has yet to stand
trial – has filed a motion in McKean County Court to have the
charges dismissed.

Terry Bundy, 43, remains incarcerated in McKean County Jail with
his bail set at $100,000 cash. His trial on charges of attempted
homicide, recklessly endangering another person, aggravated
assault, possessing an instrument of crime and possessing a small
amount of marijuana had been set to begin Monday, but was continued
by a request from District Attorney John Pavlock because of one
witness’s health crisis.

As of Wednesday, the trial had been rescheduled for Oct. 30
through Nov. 3.

However, before that takes place, Bundy’s attorney, Joe Marasco,
will have a hearing on a motion to dismiss the charges in the case.
The hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Oct. 12.

In the motion to dismiss, Marasco points out the length of time
his client has been incarcerated and argues that it is contrary to
Pennsylvania law.

In December of 2004, Bundy had entered a “no contest” plea to
some charges in the case, but withdrew the plea a few weeks later,
saying he had been rushed and misled by his previous attorneys,
according to court records.

Following that, a trial in the case had been scheduled to begin
April 25, 2005, but Pavlock had filed motions to allow alleged
prior bad acts of Bundy in as testimony at trial. Judge John Yoder
allowed some of the allegations, but disallowed others regarding
weapons and Bundy’s alleged behavior when he was intoxicated,
according to court records.

Pavlock appealed the ruling to the state Superior Court, which
caused Bundy’s trial to be delayed. The decision on the appeal,
which upheld Yoder’s ruling, came through Aug. 23, 2006.

“The filing of (Pavlock’s) frivolous appeal has created a
situation where the Commonwealth has effectively punished an
accused by depriving him of his liberty for a period of
approximately 2 1/2 years without the necessity of a finding of
guilt at trial,” Marasco argues.

In his motion, Marasco explained the legal steps which have
taken place in the case so far.

On May 10, 2005, Bundy filed a motion asking for bail, which was
not originally granted in his case. Yoder set bail at $100,000,
according to court records.

On Oct. 5, 2005, Bundy filed a petition for release on nominal
bail, “alleging that he had served approximately 241 days since the
date on which he had been granted leave to withdraw his plea” and
had not “requested a continuance, been unavailable, or expressly
waived his rights … regarding his rights to a speedy trial,” the
motion for dismissal reads.

Pavlock opposed his request, saying the time during the appeal
process did not count for the computations “for the purposes of
nominal bail.” Yoder agreed with Pavlock and denied the motion for
nominal bail.

In the motion for dismissal, Marasco says, the “defendant
maintains that the position taken by (Pavlock) is incorrect and
inconsistent with Pennsylvania law.” He says the judge’s decision
agreeing with Pavlock is an error of law.

According to Rule 600(E), “no defendant shall be held in
pre-trial incarceration on a given case for a period exceeding 180
days…” Any defendant held in excess of that is entitled to nominal
bail, the petition reads.

Marasco points out that as of the date of his motion, Sept. 22,
Bundy would have been incarcerated for a period of 861 days; and it
would have been 605 days since he was granted permission to
withdraw his plea in the case.

Pavlock filing the appeal “has required that (Bundy) forego and
give up his constitutionally mandated rights to a speedy trial,
through no fault of his nor as a result of any waiver,” the motion
reads.

The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Oct. 12. As of that
date, Bundy will have been incarcerated for 870 days, according to
court records.