Sentence upheld for Shipman
A panel of state Superior Court judges has affirmed the probation sentence handed down to a Greene County businessman who illegally dumped toxic waste in several counties, which was appealed by the state’s Attorney General on the basis that it was too lenient.
In June 2012, Greene County Judge Farley Toothman sentenced Robert Shipman, 50, of New Freeport, to seven years of probation for his guilty plea to charges that he illegally dumped the waste for more than six years, and stole $250,000 from customers by overcharging them for dumping waste. He paid $257,316 restitution at sentencing, as part of the plea arrangement, plus $100,000 to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Clean Water Fund, and $25,000 to the state’s attorney general’s office.
The Superior Court panel noted that prosecutors’ sole contention on appeal was that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence at the low end of the mitigated range of the sentencing, claiming that the sentence imposed was unreasonable under the circumstances.
According to court documents, the prosecutors supported the appeal by claiming that Toothman failed to adequately address Shipman’s criminal conduct. Shipman had organized his pollution activities over seven years and used his employees to assist in those violations, the state contended.
Furthermore, the Commonwealth contended that the suicide of Shipman’s daughter and suicide attempt by his wife were not legitimate mitigating factors for sentencing purposes. Prosecutors also argued that Shipman’s charitable contributions should not be relied upon as mitigating factors because he “used the proceeds of his criminal enterprise to fund these contributions, and then unabashedly sought tax deductions for these same contributions.”
The Superior Court panel questioned why the Commonwealth failed to offer any case law to support its argument. “The complete failure of the Commonwealth to supply or argue any relevant legal authority as to the merits of its position is telling,” the panel stated.
“The sentencing 1 appropriately considered (Shipman’s) family issues and concerns, which are routinely considered as potential mitigating factors,” the panel wrote. “It accurately noted that (Shipman) has several children for whom he must care and a wife who, due to mental health issues relating to the suicide of her teenage daughter, is incapable of providing significant help.
“(Shipman) also paid restitution in full, paid a significant amount of money to benefit public environmental organizations and has no juvenile or adult criminal record. Additionally, (Shipman) must perform 1,750 hours of community service.
“(Shipman’s) sentence was not clearly unreasonable and the court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning (Shipman’s) sentence,” the panel concluded.