Judge sentences former mayoral candidate Richardson to jail |

Judge sentences former mayoral candidate Richardson to jail

Aaron Aupperlee
Stephanie Strasburg | Tribune-Review
A.J. Richardson of Sheraden

An Allegheny County judge sentenced A.J. Richardson, a former Pittsburgh mayoral candidate, to jail Monday.

Common Pleas Judge Anthony M. Mariani put Richardson, 38, of Sheraden in jail for three to six months with credit for time served. He will be on probation after his jail sentence and must complete 200 hours of community service.

Richardson went to jail after his sentencing hearing. Aaron Sontz, Richardson’s attorney, said his client has credit for jail time served between April 5 and Aug. 21. Sontz, a public defender, said Richardson will appeal his sentence but declined to comment further.

A jury convicted Richardson of misdemeanor charges of assault, trespass, harassment and resisting arrest in September. The jury acquitted him of aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, burglary, riot and criminal trespass, all felonies.

Police said that Sept. 3, 2013, Richardson walked into a neighbor’s house and threatened him. Richardson fought with police when they tried to arrest him.

Richardson ran for mayor in 2013 and received less than 1 percent of the Democratic vote in the primary.

A jury trial in a case involving Richardson and his wife, Felecia, 44, was scheduled to start Monday before Mariani, but the judge delayed its start until March 2. Richardson and his wife are accused of making more than 100 fake 911 calls from their home.

Aaron Aupperlee is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

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.