Hempfield man’s appeal in child rape case denied |

Hempfield man’s appeal in child rape case denied


A Hempfield man’s conviction to charges that he raped four children was upheld on Wednesday.

Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rita Hathaway ruled there was no basis for the appeal filed by Kenneth Duane Husband, who contended his guilty 2014 guilty plea should be vacated due to a technical error.

Husband, 48, contended his conviction was invalid because he did not properly sign court documents as part of the guilty plea and that his accusers have since recanted their allegations.

The judge ruled that the signature issue did not warrant the conviction to be overturned and that the appeal on those grounds was not filed in time.

Husband is serving a sentence of 15 to-30 years in prison.

Hathaway also ruled there was no evidence that the victims changed their story in which they claimed they were repeatedly raped and molested by Husband over a three-year period that ended in November 2012.

“It is unclear how defendant learned of these alleged reports — defendant did not present them to the court or his counsel and there is no evidence that such statements exist,” Hathaway wrote.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293 or [email protected]

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.