Ex-prof appeals manslaughter sentence

Lawyers for former Economics professor Rafael Robb filed an appeal of his 5 to 10 year sentence for killing his wife, Ellen, two years ago.

Frank DeSimone, Robb's attorney, told The Philadelphia Inquirer he filed a motion for reconsideration because he felt Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Paul Tressler did not understand the motive of a letter Robb sent to his 14-year old daughter, Olivia.

In the letter, which Olivia received the day before Robb's Nov. 19 sentencing, Robb told Olivia she would not receive holiday presents if she did not send him a picture of herself and her report card.

Tressler said at the sentencing that the letter caused him to give Robb a sentence in the standard range for voluntary manslaughter, rather than have him receive a lighter sentence.

Robb pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in November 2007.

Tressler said he does not want Robb to control his daughter's life, something the letter showed he was trying to do.

Bruce Castor, one of the prosecutors in the case, called the appeal "hogwash" and "despicable" because Ellen Robb's family and friends are still reeling from her death and think he should have received a harsher sentence.

Castor added that a judge does not have to grant a hearing for the appeal, particularly because the sentence was not out of line with other sentences in the state.

In November 2007, Robb admitted to bludgeoning his wife to death with a chin-up bar in December 2006 after they got into a fight over Olivia's vacation plans.

Comments (3)

This whole scenario is absurd. I cannot believe that this guy pulled this off. He gets an extremely short sentence for what was essentially premeditated murder and then has the audacity to appeal the sentence. The other part that strikes me is that he is going to sit in prison and work on his theories. When he gets out he is likely in one of the only professions where he may be able to find work despite his criminal record. Some small school or community college will give him a job and he can go right on publishing again.

Why not just take him out and shoot him without a trial? Who cares if he wasn't convicted of "premeditated murder" but rather "voluntary manslaughter". Such distinctions, as well as appeal rights, are just so much legal mumbo-jumbo anyway, right? It would be so much easier and infinitely less expensive to throw out the legal system entirely. That way the obviously guilty could be executed the day after their arrest. Just think of the cost saving.

[QUOTE id="c03960ec-1b6a-4e9a-8236-aef44a5d35c2"]Why not just take him out and shoot him without a trial? Who cares if he wasn't convicted of "premeditated murder" but rather "voluntary manslaughter". Such distinctions, as well as appeal rights, are just so much legal mumbo-jumbo anyway, right? It would be so much easier and infinitely less expensive to throw out the legal system entirely. That way the obviously guilty could be executed the day after their arrest. Just think of the cost saving.[/QUOTE] No one is saying shoot him without a trial. And he wasn't convicted - he pled guilty to a lesser charge. Way to be a reactionary fool who has little understanding of the facts and of the legal system.

Comments are closed for this item.