Former City Council aide pleads guilty, gets 5 years’ probation for chain saw theft |

Former City Council aide pleads guilty, gets 5 years’ probation for chain saw theft

An Allegheny County judge on Wednesday sentenced a former Pittsburgh City Council aide to five years of probation for using taxpayer money to buy $10,000 worth of chain saws and then filing a false report saying they were stolen.

Common Pleas President Judge Donna Jo McDaniel sentenced Matthew Hogue, 28, of Elliott, a former constituent services director for Councilman Bruce Kraus, for theft and filing false police reports. McDaniel also ordered Hogue to pay $10,565 in restitution.

Hogue pleaded guilty to the charges.

Hogue declined comment and referred calls to his attorney, David S. Shrager, who was not available.

Mike Manko, spokesman for the District Attorney’s Office, said he could not comment on the case.

Police said Hogue bought 13 commercial-grade Husqvarna chain saws on March 9 from Jefferson Hills Lawn Equipment in Jefferson Hills and on April 18 filed a police report stating that someone burglarized his home and took the saws the night before.

Kraus said he did not authorize the purchase.

Hogue told police he went jogging and left his basement door open. Police found no evidence of forced entry.

Police arrested Hogue on May 4.

Police said Hogue initially blamed the missing chain saws on a neighbor before admitting to buying them.

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.