Superior Court reverses Fayette judge’s ruling in Breakiron case
A three-judge panel of the state Superior Court reversed a Fayette County judge’s ruling that the state Attorney General’s office should be compelled to offer a Connellsville man admission to a pre-trial diversionary program. In a ruling handed down Friday, the court remanded the case brought against Robert Breakiron Jr., 39, to Judge Steve P. Leskinen. The jurist had ruled that prosecutors could not preclude Breakiron from seeking admission to the Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) program for charges of false reports and false statements to police.
Breakiron allegedly lied to state police by telling them his car was stolen from his home. In reality, police allege, Breakiron crashed his car in Connellsville on Oct. 19, 2003, and fled the scene.
Breakiron, a former Fayette County adult probation officer and son of Senior Magisterial District Judge Robert Breakiron Sr., reportedly told police that he lied when he said the car was stolen. Police claim he told them he was drinking and wrecked his car at the intersection of Crawford Avenue and Breakneck Road in Connellsville.
He reportedly lied about the theft because he was concerned about his probation officer’s job, which he lost when charges were filed.
Deputy Attorney General L. Todd Goodwin had said that Breakiron was offered a chance to participate in ARD in 2004, but declined to do so and instead filed a motion to have charges dismissed.
Admission to the ARD program would allow Breakiron to serve time on a probationary-type program. If it is successfully completed, the program affords participants the opportunity to have their criminal records expunged.
Breakiron’s former attorney filed the motion to have the charges dismissed in 2004, but that motion was denied. Not allowing Breakiron to then apply for the ARD program was unconstitutional, former attorney Mark Morrison had argued.
Morrison argued that Breakiron was free to file any pre-trial motions, and said prosecutors could not stop him from seeking ARD if those motions were denied. Admission to the ARD program is at the sole discretion of a judge.
Goodwin argued that the purpose of the ARD program is to get the case through court, giving the admitted person a second chance.
“There’s absolutely nothing accelerated about this,” he said.
If attorneys decline ARD, and then file motions challenging the evidence before trial, Goodwin said they could find the option of ARD has been waived.
“They (file motions) at their own peril, and they’re out of luck,” Goodwin argued previously.
The case will be transferred back to Fayette County Court.