Former Pennsylvania State Rep. Mike Veon, who was sentenced to up to 14 years in state
prison following his public corruption conviction this past summer, is asking a judge to consolidate the appeal of his jury verdict with that of his co-defendant.
Veon’s attorneys, Joel S. Sansone and Daniel Raynak, filed a motion to consolidate appeals and to extend briefing schedule Dec. 26 in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s Middle District.
Veon, formerly a Democratic State House Majority Whip from Beaver County, which is located in southwestern Pennsylvania, was sentenced to a 6-to-14 year prison term for illegally utilizing public resources for political gain.
Veon had been charged alongside a host of other former state legislators in the investigation launched by then-Attorney General, and current Gov. Tom Corbett, in what soon became known as “Bonusgate,” a reference to the bonuses that were handed out to staffers in return for their doing political work for lawmakers.
In this week’s post-sentencing motion, Veon’s lawyers request that their client’s appeal be consolidated with the appeal of AnnaMarie Perretta-Rosepink because the two have raised identical issues that are “now ripe for decision by this Court.”
Veon had originally filed his appeal on Sept. 24 of this year, but because the issue of restitution had not yet been decided, a second appeal on all issues was filed on Dec. 5.
Perretta-Rosepink’s attorneys filed her appeal on Dec. 11.
AnnaMarie Perretta-Rosepink, a former top aide to Veon, was sentenced this past spring to 9 months of house arrest for conspiring with her former boss to misuse state funds in connection with the “Bonusgate” scandal.
At trial, prosecutors and defense attorneys differed on the amount of money that was stolen by Veon and Perretta-Rosepink, with the former arguing it exceeded $130,000, and the latter claiming it was in the neighborhood of $17,000, according to news reports following the convictions.
Veon had been sentenced to an additional one-to-four-year prison term in Dauphin County in June for misusing state funds at a nonprofit he once ran in his home county.
That sentence was in addition to the original 6-to-14-year term.
In the Dec. 26 appeals filing, Veon’s attorneys state that neither defendant has yet to obtain trial transcripts because of monetary constraints.
“While those difficulties have now been resolved, the transcript has only recently been ordered, and has not yet been delivered to the defendant,” the filing states. “Obviously the transcript is critical for the proper briefing of the issues presented to this Court.”
Because of this factor, Veon’s lawyers argue, the Superior Court should grant the defense an extension of time by which Veon’s brief can be submitted to the court to a date equal with the due date for the brief of Perretta-Rosepink.
An extension regarding the briefing schedule in the original appeal had been earlier requested, with Veon’s brief currently due by Jan. 7, 2013. No briefing schedule, however, has yet been issued regarding Perretta-Rosepink’s appeal.