Executive Summary
- Kevin Foley appears in Indiana County Court today for a nunc pro tunc hearing regarding the 2006 murder of Dr. John Yelenic.
- The hearing will determine if Foley can file an appeal despite the expiration of standard statutory deadlines.
- Foley is serving life without parole; a previous appeal regarding DNA and footprint evidence was rejected by the state Supreme Court in 2017.
- Nunc pro tunc relief is typically reserved for cases where administrative errors or extraordinary circumstances prevented a timely filing.
INDIANA, Pa. — Kevin Foley, the former state trooper serving a life sentence for the 2006 murder of Blairsville dentist Dr. John Yelenic, is scheduled to appear in Indiana County Court today for a hearing regarding appeal deadlines. According to court documents, the proceeding concerns a petition for an appeal nunc pro tunc, a request asking the court to permit a filing after the standard legal deadline has expired.
Foley was convicted of killing Dr. Yelenic in April 2006 and is currently serving life in prison without parole. Judicial records show that Foley previously appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court in 2017. During that appeal, the defense argued that then-President Judge William Martin improperly allowed jurors to hear testimony regarding bloody footprints found near the victim’s body. The high court affirmed the conviction, citing DNA evidence collected from under the victim’s fingernails and other proof linking Foley to the crime scene.
The specific legal motion being heard today, an appeal nunc pro tunc, is an equitable remedy used to correct a breakdown in the court’s operations or to address situations where a defendant was denied the right to appeal due to circumstances beyond their control. If granted, the court would treat Foley’s new appeal as if it had been filed within the statutory time limits.
Judicial Ramifications
The scheduling of a nunc pro tunc hearing suggests the court is willing to review procedural arguments regarding Foley’s access to the appellate process. While such petitions do not address the guilt or innocence of the defendant directly, granting the motion would reopen a legal channel for the defense to challenge the original 2009 conviction. A denial would reinforce the finality of the state Supreme Court’s previous affirmation and exhaust this specific avenue of post-conviction relief for Foley.
