Jerry Sandusky, the convicted child sex abuser sentenced to no less than 30 years, became a state prison inmate Tuesday with his transfer out of the Centre County jail, his home since he was convicted in June of child molestation.
The 68-year-old former Penn State assistant coach arrived early in the morning at the State Correctional Institute at Camp Hill, just outside Harrisburg, a state prison system spokeswoman said.
He faces testing and evaluation that will take a week or more before he can be assigned a security risk level and sent to one of the state facilities as his “home” prison. At Camp Hill, experts will assess his mental state, physical health and education level, and determine whether he needs treatment.
Sandusky was sentenced this month to 30 to 60 years for sexual abuse of 10 boys over a 15-year period.
There are about 6,800 sex offenders serving time in Pennsylvania’s prison system. The Corrections Department does not maintain special units for sex offenders, and there is no way to predict where he will be sent.
Meanwhile, he maintains his innocence and had attorney file motions for a new trial.
Sandusky’s lawyers made the filing at the courthouse in Bellefonte, where he was sentenced two weeks ago after being convicted of abusing 10 boys, some on Penn State’s campus in State College.
“The defendant submits the court’s sentence was excessive and tantamount . . . to a life sentence, which the defendant submits is in violation of his rights,” they wrote.
The 31-page set of motions, technically not appeals because they were filed with the trial judge, cover a wide range of assertions, including insufficient evidence, improper use of hearsay testimony and improper rulings from the bench.
More than a third of the document explores ways Sandusky claims the rapid pace of the case violated his right to due process of law, as he went from arrest to trial in just over seven months. His lawyers said they were swamped by documents from prosecutors and lacked time to interview possible witnesses and an expert and two assistants were not available at trial.
The document said Judge John Cleland ruled improperly concerning the use of a computer-generated drawing of an accuser and issued incorrect jury instructions. It also raised issues about prosecutors’ closing argument, the vagueness of the charges, sequestration of jurors and the amount of restitution ordered.