gavel.jpgAn alleged career criminal who was found in possession of a homicide victim’s debit card hours after his death in San Francisco’s Mission District last month pleaded not guilty to murder and robbery charges today.

Roland Pouncy, 42, is accused of strangling Richard Sprague, 47, early the morning of Feb. 19 in the 100 block of Julian Avenue.

Sprague was found after someone called police to report that a man had been lying in the street for more than an hour and hadn’t moved.

Several hours later, Pouncy was arrested near 16th and Mission streets and was found to have Sprague’s debit card, police said.

Prosecutors initially charged Pouncy with receiving stolen property, but dropped that charge Tuesday and filed an amended complaint accusing him of robbing and killing Sprague.

Assistant District Attorney Eric Fleming said DNA evidence in the case “supports that it was Mr. Pouncy that strangled” Sprague.

Pouncy appeared in court this afternoon to be arraigned on the new charges. He pleaded not guilty to all counts and was ordered held on $2 million bail by Judge Gerardo Sandoval.

Pouncy’s defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Stephen Rosen, said, “The case against Mr. Pouncy needs to be investigated thoroughly.”

Rosen said, “I can unequivocally state that it would be a mistake to assume the evidence against him points unerringly to his guilt.”

Pouncy will return to court on April 5 to set a future date in the case.

Prosecutors said previously that Pouncy has served two prior prison terms for offenses in San Francisco, and has a lengthy rap sheet statewide.

Dan McMenamin, Bay City News

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • tranimal00

    Rosen said, “I can unequivocally state that it would be a mistake to assume the evidence against him points unerringly to his guilt.”

    if they found his DNA on the victim, I’d say it’s pretty it’s pretty easy to assume, actually. Especially if it were related to defensive wounds (like the victim having the assailant’s skin under their fingernails, etc.).

  • tranimal00

    Rosen said, “I can unequivocally state that it would be a mistake to assume the evidence against him points unerringly to his guilt.”

    if they found his DNA on the victim, I’d say it’s pretty it’s pretty easy to assume, actually. Especially if it were related to defensive wounds (like the victim having the assailant’s skin under their fingernails, etc.).