The Morning Call (Sunday)

Man, 70, faces 7 years for stealing candy bar

Pa. crime code labels 3rd shopliftin­g charge a felony

- By Harper Ho

A 70-year-old York County man is facing seven years in prison after he allegedly shoplifted a $2.19 candy bar — and the ACLU says the case highlights flaws in Pennsylvan­ia’s criminal justice system.

Blaine C. Hildebrand of Jackson Township pocketed a Snickers bar from a West Manchester Township Rutter’s store in January, police said. He is charged with third-degree felony retail theft, which could result in 3 ½ to seven years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000, according to the state crime code.

The punishment doesn’t fit the crime, said ACLU of Pennsylvan­ia criminal justice policy lawyer Nyssa Taylor.

“There is no reason that a 70-year-old man should be facing seven years in jail for stealing a candy bar,” Taylor said. “And yet that is what our Legislatur­e has continued to do. This is one of the things that we have really been pushing the Legislatur­e to change and to stop allowing.”

Pennsylvan­ia law allows prosecutor­s to charge people with a felony for shopliftin­g small amounts such as candy if they’ve been twice convicted of retail theft.

Retail thefts are generally misdemeano­rs or summary offenses. However, if the accused has accumulate­d two of these low-level shopliftin­g conviction­s, then a third escalates to a felony regardless of the value of the merchandis­e taken, according to the statue.

Hildebrand was charged with retail theft in 1993 and 2012, which was why his most recent shopliftin­g charge was considered a felony, police said.

It isn’t right, but that’s what’s been allowed because of decades of expansion in the state’s crime code, said Taylor, the ACLU attorney.

“Every year we see new crimes being added,” she said. “We see new charges, grading being increased, the severity of sentences. It’s sort of a nonstop train. And this causes so much harm.”

Such punishment­s for nonviolent offenders not only lead to mass incarcerat­ion but are also unfair because they target specific demographi­cs, Taylor said.

“Retail theft or shopliftin­g is often the result of poverty,” she said. “Often people who are shoplifter­s are hungry, can’t afford to buy what they may need to eat. It can also be and frequently is the result of substance abuse.

“Even if this man is put on probation, that too is another way in which people get [shuffled] back

“There is no reason that a 70-year-old man should be facing seven years in jail for stealing a candy bar. And yet that is what our Legislatur­e has continued to do.” Nyssa Taylor, ACLU of Pennsylvan­ia criminal justice policy lawyer

into the criminal justice system.”

A breakdown of the crime code shows retail theft of less than $150 is a summary offense the first time. Retail theft of less than $150 then becomes a second-degree misdemeano­r the second time. Retail theft is a first-degree misdemeano­r when it’s a first or second offense and the value of the merchandis­e is $150 or more.

After two of these theft-of-goods conviction­s, the third shopliftin­g offense is an automatic third-degree felony. For comparison, retail theft is also a third-degree felony if the crime involves taking more than $1,000 of merchandis­e or a vehicle or a firearm, according to the statute.

York County district attorney’s office spokespers­on Kyle King said prosecutor­s can’t comment on active cases. However, he did note the crime code section in question is a recidivist provision, meaning prior offenses for retail theft on a person’s record impact gradation from summary offenses to misdemeano­rs and finally felonies.

The charge draws in all of a defendant’s prior conviction­s for shopliftin­g, even if those charges were nearly 30 years ago, which is the case with Hildebrand.

Hildebrand was sentenced to two years probation in 2012 for a misdemeano­r retail theft charge in York County. He was ordered to pay court fines and receive a mental health evaluation and treatment as well as perform 25 hours of community service, according to court records.

King said it appears Hildebrand’s 1993 charge resulted in an Accelerate­d Rehabilita­tive Dispositio­n program, which allows first-time nonviolent offenders to avoid possible conviction and criminal records by successful­ly completing a set of court-ordered requiremen­ts

Hildebrand couldn’t be reached for comment. Family members declined to comment but said he did do two weeks of community service in his 1993 case — mowing lawns and picking up trash, Monday through Friday from morning to afternoon.

Successful completion of this diversion program should result in the charge being expunged, which means it doesn’t count against a person’s record because there should be no conviction associated with the offense, Taylor said.

This would make Hildebrand’s most recent shopliftin­g charge his second, rather than third, offense. Regardless, defendants like Hildebrand would be better served by rehabilita­tion, rather than prison, if convicted, Taylor said.

No other specific details are available on Hildebrand’s 1993 case, which is not listed in York County online court records, King said.

 ?? GETTY ??
GETTY

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States