SUNBURY - Former county correctional officer Kazimir Craig "KC" Grohowski, who was convicted by a jury in 2006 of delivering drugs to an inmate but has avoided jail through an ongoing appeal process, is grateful for his current freedom, but would like to see his 11-year-old case resolved.
"It's been a nightmare," Grohowski said Tuesday during a telephone interview. "There was no evidence presented in court that I was guilty of any of the offenses filed against me. I was not properly advised by my former attorney and there was prosecutorial misconduct. It's ridiculous that this case has gone on for 11 years."
Grohowski, of Mount Carmel, said he's been unable to work since August after suffering an injury to his left shoulder while working construction. He says he needs replacement surgery.
"I can't collect unemployment and I'm ineligible for workers' compensation," he said.
Despite his physical and financial setbacks, Grohowski is confident that he will win his appeal and be exonerated.
"I have 100-percent faith in my attorney (Edward Kopko). He has been amazing and I would lay my life in his hands," he said.
On March 4, Northumberland County President Judge William H. Wiest filed an opinion in the case that states the defendant's post conviction relief act (PCRA) petition should be denied because Grohowski is ineligible since he's not in prison or on probation or parole. But Wiest concluded that the remaining issues presented in the appeal should "undoubtedly prevail" on their merits.
Wiest said, "This court was not the presiding judge over the defendant's trial and the prior judge's formal opinion and order of June 23, 2011, substantially sets forth adequate reasoning to support the claims of insufficient evidence at trial, ineffectiveness of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims. The court hereby adopts the opinion of the prior judge and incorporates the same with this opinion."
Wiest's opinion will be reviewed by the state Superior Court, which can affirm or reject it. If it's affirmed, Grohowski would be ordered to begin his jail sentence unless he files an appeal with the state Supreme Court. If the Superior Court rejects Wiest's opinion, the case will be remanded back to Wiest to hear the issues presented by Grohowski in his PCRA petition.
Senior Deputy Attorney General Dave Gorman, who prosecuted the case, said appeals in the higher courts can take months to years to be ruled on.
On Sept. 4, Kopko filed a motion for a stay of execution of sentence and a petition for post-conviction collateral relief.
On Sept. 12, Wiest granted Grohowski a stay of execution of sentence, meaning he would not have to report to a state correctional institution as ordered by Wiest on Aug. 1.
On Oct. 7, Kopko filed a timely appeal that prevented his client from going to jail.
According to Wiest's order, Grohowski's direct appeal rights were reinstated because he was never served a notice of the state Superior Court's denial of his appeal May 26, 2011, on a post-trial motion.
The order says Grohowski has indicated a meritorious claim on appeal, which he has taken substantial steps to initiate.
In his petition for post-conviction collateral relief, Kopko argued that the commonwealth failed to introduce evidence on each of the charges filed against Grohowski, including any proof that he possessed a controlled substance.
Kopko accuses Gorman of engaging in prosecutorial misconduct that deprived Grohowski of a fair trial. He claims the Commonwealth was complicit with the defendant's former counsel, Richard Feudale, of Mount Carmel, in denying Grohowski's right to a speedy trial.
The attorney also accuses Feudale of being ineffective at trial.
Grohowski's legal saga began April 14, 2004, when he and seven other current or former prison guards were charged in connection with a two-year grand jury investigation into offenses allegedly committed between 2000 and 2002 at the prison.
Charges against one of the other guards were eventually withdrawn. Another guard was acquitted of drug charges during a 2005 trial and allowed to return to work at the prison. The other four guards entered guilty pleas and received various sentences, but avoided spending time in prison. Grohowski would be the first from the group to spend any time behind bars.
In September 2006, Grohowski was convicted by a jury of three counts of delivery of contraband - cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana - to an inmate at the jail. He was acquitted of aggravated assault against an inmate.
In August 2007, then President Judge Robert B. Sacavage granted Grohowski a new trial, citing a need for "extraordinary relief." Among the key issues was that Feudale didn't object to Gorman in his closing argument, asking the jury to consider sending a "message" by finding Grohowski guilty. Sacavage, who has since retired and become a senior judge, said Grohowski's case was prejudiced by that remark.
He also said physical evidence supporting the guilty verdict was insufficient and that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence presented in the testimony of three inmates. He said that testimony amounted "to little more than vague assertions that they had received drugs from the defendant."
Gorman said the "message" statement had no bearing on the jury's verdict, and he defended Feudale by pointing out that he filed pre-trial motions in the case and attacked the credibility of witnesses, including inmates.
Gorman appealed Sacavage's ruling to the state Superior Court, which in the summer of 2009 ruled in a 3-2 decision that extraordinary relief was not justified because the appeals process shouldn't occur until after sentencing.
With Sacavage's ruling for a new trial overturned, the case proceeded to sentencing based on the original conviction. In October 2009, Sacavage sentenced Grohowski to two to four years in state prison.
Kopko again began the appeal process. He filed post-sentence motions requesting acquittal or a new trial, and arguments were heard by Sacavage. The judge later acquitted Grohowski due to what he ruled was ineffective counsel and the "message" remark by Gorman.
But Gorman appealed again. On May 22, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the acquittal ruling. It said Sacavage's ruling on post-sentence motions, made June 23, 2011, came after the 120 days allotted for post-sentence motions, which were made by Kopko on Jan. 26, 2011. It made the motions legally null, the court said.
The Superior Court ruling was appealed by Kopko, but when the state Supreme Court upheld it Dec. 3, Gorman took action to initiate the sentencing.