SMETHPORT – The Port Allegany man jailed since May of 2004 for
allegedly shooting another man in the face will have to wait a
little longer for Judge John Yoder to decide whether the charges
against him should be dismissed.

In a hearing Thursday in McKean County Court, Terry Bundy, 43,
who was represented by Bradford attorney Joe Marasco, sought to
have the judge dismiss charges of attempted criminal homicide,
recklessly endangering another person, aggravated assault,
possessing an instrument of crime and possessing a small amount of
marijuana.

Marasco’s argument was that Bundy has been in jail longer than
allowable under Pennsylvania’s speedy trial guarantee. And that
length of incarceration was exacerbated by an appeal taken by
District Attorney John Pavlock to a decision in the case by Judge
John Yoder to partially exclude some testimony about alleged prior
acts of Bundy.

Marasco said Thursday, “The issue is whether the appeal was a
frivolous appeal.”

He said Pennsylvania’s laws don’t define a frivolous appeal, but
he suggested a definition of one where the end result is one with
only slight success.

The testimony Pavlock was seeking to have included was from
Bundy’s former wife alleging that he had shot a gun at her seven
years before.

“What’s the relevance of the information? It has nothing to do
with assaultive behavior,” Marasco said.

He also argued that the district attorney had the testimony from
Bundy’s former wife early on in the case, but did not turn it over
to defense counsel.

To counter that, Pavlock suggested County Detective Jerry
Okerlund testify as to when he interviewed Rhonda Andreano, the
ex-wife in question, and learned that information. Both attorneys
agreed Okerlund could review his notes and submit his testimony in
an affidavit to the court.

Marasco also suggested that Pavlock had filed the appeal in the
case simply as a delay tactic.

“The Commonwealth has effectively punished this person without
the necessity of a trial,” he said. He also argued that the jail
time itself was prejudicial to Bundy, as the jail is not equipped
to handle inmates for the long-term.

“What’s completely frivolous is the defendant’s position,”
Pavlock said. “There’s no support whatsoever that this appeal was
frivolous.

“I would note starting out that Your Honor has already ruled on
this,” he said to Yoder, referring to a previous motion in the
case.

And, he said, “there’s no evidence whatsoever that this appeal
was filed to keep Mr. Bundy in jail.”

Pavlock said the delay in the case during the process of the
appeal was while he was waiting for the preparation of necessary
transcripts in the case.

Addressing Marasco’s argument of prejudice from the jail
sentence, Pavlock disagreed.

“‘I was in jail, therefore I was prejudiced?’ There’s no case
law supporting that,” he said.

Yoder took the matter under advisement.