Cops: Pair accused of DUI after recent joyride in Unity Township |

Cops: Pair accused of DUI after recent joyride in Unity Township


A man and woman told troopers neither was behind the wheel of a truck discovered stuck in a soybean field in Unity Township last month, but both now are accused of drunken driving and related charges following the alleged joyride through several yards and fields.

State police charged Rhonda M. Barkley, 31, and Richard S. Fircetz, 46, of Latrobe, with driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to stop and provide information, careless driving and driving on suspended licenses.

Witnesses placed Barkley behind the wheel of the Ford F250 pickup truck on Aug. 19 when it became stuck in a field along Longs Road, causing more than $1,000 damage, so she also is charged with making false reports, criminal mischief and agricultural vandalism, Trooper Branden Snyder reported in court document filed this week before Unity Township District Judge Michael Mahady.

Troopers responded to the scene after receiving multiple reports that a truck “was doing circles” in the field and had become stuck, Snyder reported. Barkley and Fircetz were outside the truck when troopers arrived.

“(Barkley) related her friend Billy was driving and fled the scene on foot,” Snyder reported.

However, witnesses told troopers that Barkley and Fircetz were the only ones they saw in the truck.

“Through further investigation, Fircetz admitted that he and Barkley were both intentionally driving through yards and fields. It was noted that Barkley and Fircetz had ID cards only and both have suspended driver’s licenses,” Snyder wrote in court documents.

Preliminary hearings will be scheduled before Mahady.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, [email protected] or via Twitter @ppeirce_trib.

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.