ShareThis Page
Convicted sex offender withdrawls guilty plea |

Convicted sex offender withdrawls guilty plea

| Friday, July 11, 2008 12:00 a.m

Joseph Allen Willison, 29, withdrew a guilty plea Thursday in Armstrong County Court to a charge of failing to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law for the second time following a 2005 sex-related crime in Allegheny County.

Willison, whose last listed address is 107 Lowell St., Vandergrift (Westmoreland County), mistakenly pleaded guilty to the charge in June as a first-degree felony. The correct grade is a second-degree felony.

Willison was arrested last year after police found him living at 131 Booth Road, Gilpin Township. Megan’s Law requires sex offenders to let law enforcement know within 48 hours of an address change.

Prosecutors said at the time of Willison’s plea that the charge should be graded as a first-degree felony because it was his second conviction for the crime. Defense counsel James Wray said in court yesterday that the count should be a second-degree felony because Willison is only required to register as a sex offender for 10 years, not his entire life.

A presentence investigation corroborated Wray’s claim.

Judge James Panchik offered to enter an order changing Willison’s plea to a second-degree felony and proceed with sentencing, but the defendant declined and withdrew his guilty plea.

Willison initially was convicted in Allegheny County for a sex-related crime against children in 2005. He was sentenced in 2006 in Westmoreland County for failing to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.