John Denofa, who’s serving a life term for killing an exotic dancer in March 2000, has appealed his Burlington County murder conviction so many times, he’s often filed new appeals on issues that were pending decisions in prior appeals.
Most of them have failed, and the ones that went before judges never reduced his prison term in the death of Rachel Siani, a 21-year-old Bucks County, Pennsylvania woman found dead under a New Jersey Turnpike bridge.
In the fog of his latest appeal, though, an appellate panel in January granted Denofa a flicker of hope: a narrow window to argue whether his life sentence was excessive.
A jury convicted Denofa in 2002 for the crime which began at a now-defunct strip club in Bucks County, Divas in Bristol Township, where Siani danced under the name Foxy Roxy.
Denofa, then 35, and a married man who ran a family sign business, was a regular at the club and socialized with dancers outside of the club. (Denofa’s wife occasionally joined in the gatherings, often at morning-after breakfasts.)
One night, Denofa and Siani wound up in a nearby motel and he killed her — authorities have never been clear exactly why — and dropped her body from a motel window, then put her into the bed of his pickup truck.
He then headed toward New Jersey and dropped her a second time off the Turnpike bridge. She landed on a secluded parcel of land next to the Delaware River.
Authorities found her blood at the motel and in his truck, as well as grainy video footage of the truck on the Turnpike, first driving to New Jersey, then back to Pennsylvania — and it showed a motionless woman sprawled out in the back.
In 2003, a judge sentenced Denofa to life, with 30 years of parole ineligibility.
The January appeal is an appeal of his third post-conviction relief appeal, or PCR, that Denofa lost in 2022. (PCR appeals are heard at the trial level and often argue ineffective counsel.)
The latest appeals judges found that through the blizzard of prior appeals, Denofa had never substantively argued in his direct appeals — which are heard at the appellate level — whether his life term was excessive.
On that matter alone, they scheduled Denofa for a sentencing hearing.
It occurred in Trenton on Tuesday, Feb. 11, over just nine minutes in front of two appeals judges, Robert J. Gilson and Lorraine M. Augostini.
Denofa’s lawyer, Ruth E. Hunter, argued that the original sentencing judge handed down mitigating and aggravating factors that work against each other, mitigating in that Denofa had no prior criminal record but aggravating that such a sentence was needed as a deterrence for violating the law.
Case law has changed, Denofa is now 60 years old, and the passage of time should give her client a brand-new sentencing hearing, Hunter argued.
“We can’t just pretend that we’re back in 2003,” Hunter told the judges. “The risk of recidivism, based on Mr. Denofa’s age of 60, is very low.”
We absolutely can look at this like 2003, Alexis R. Agre, an assistant Burlington County prosecutor, told the judges.
The sentencing judge presided over the trial, heard the evidence and made a cogent sentencing.
“This was a cruel crime,” Agre said.
As for the mitigating aggravating factors being in apparent opposition, they are not. One can be convicted of a heinous crime while being free of a prior violence. “Those two factors do not fight each other,” she said.
“The sentence is proper, is within state guidelines and does not shock the judicial conscience,” Agre offered.
The judges did not rule right away, opting for a future decision.
In granting the sentencing hearing, the judges said in their January decision that although the number of Denofa’s prior appeals had caused “some confusion” because they often overlapped, they looked at them all and were satisfied on all other arguments.
“Nevertheless, our review of the numerous motions, applications, and appeals, satisfies us that, with one exception, all the arguments defendant raised were carefully and thoroughly considered but ultimately rejected.”
However, they also said that by granting the sentencing hearing, they hoped to avoid yet another appeal.
“We note that by reinstating defendant’s direct appeal we should avoid another PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance concerning a failure to move to reinstate the direct appeal to address the sentencing issue,” the judges said.
In other words, they hope Denofa does not, once again, appeal the fact that prior appeals did not pick up the excessive sentencing argument which the judge just granted.
Denofa currently resides in East Jersey State Prison in Woodbridge with a parole eligibility date in 2032.
Stories by Kevin Shea
Thank you for relying on us to provide the local news you can trust. Please consider supporting NJ.com with a voluntary subscription.
Kevin Shea may be reached at kshea@njadvancemedia.com