Opinion
No. CR96-874650
February 25, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Joseph Ancona, petitioner, was found guilty by a jury of four counts of Arson in the First Degree in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-111(a)(3) and four counts of Attempt to Commit Larceny in the First Degree in violation of C.G.S. §§ 53a-122(a)(2). On the first count of Arson in the First Degree he was sentenced to 3 years incarceration; on count two to 3 years incarceration concurrent; on count three to 12 years incarceration consecutive; and on count four to 3 years incarceration concurrent.
On the first count of Attempt to Commit Larceny in the First Degree, the petitioner was sentenced to 3 years incarceration consecutive; on the next count to 3 years incarceration concurrent; on count seven to 3 years incarceration consecutive; and on the last count to 3 years incarceration concurrent. The total effective sentence is 21 years incarceration.
On June 4, 1995, Farmington Fire Department responded to a fire in Unionville. Ancona owned the building and there were no indications of forced entry.
On June 4, 1995, New Britain Fire Department responded to a fire of an occupied apartment building. It was determined to have been started by human origin and there was no sign of forced entry.
On July 20, 1995, a fire was reported to Farmington Fire Department in a building owned by Ancona. Ancona had recently been asking the tenant of the building when she would be out of the house, and she changed her locks in fear of his entry. He had been seen driving near the residence prior to the fire.
On July 27, 1995, a fire occurred at a single residence in Canton/Avon and was owned by Ancona. On July 28, 1995, police interviewed Ancona about the Canton fire and he sounded unconcerned and spoke of an alibi. In August he testified about financial losses and in fact he had filed for bankruptcy the previous December, but withdrew the petition. His alibis were not sound and a warrant was issued.
Defendant was found guilty of four counts of arson and four counts of larceny stemming from four separate fires.
Counsel for the petitioner stated all the buildings were owned by his client. He was having financial problems. The offenses were committed because he needed the insurance proceeds. Counsel argues his client has little prior criminal record. He points out that the petitioner went out of his way to make sure no one was present in any building at the time of the fire. His problems were enhanced because of severe depression and mental health issues.
Counsel for the state argues the petitioner may have gone to great lengths not to endanger any of his tenants, however, this did little to ensure the safety of the firefighters that answered the four fires. The potential for danger was great. The petitioner clearly set the fires for financial gain.
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in its scope of review. The Division is to determine whether the sentence imposed "should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest and the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended."
The Division is without authority to modify a sentence except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-28 et seq. and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-195 et seq.
The trial court reiterated the concerns of the state. The Court added: "[t]he individual victims lost their possessions. He did not give them any consideration or compassion. He had no compassion for the firemen. He claims to despise insurance companies."
The Division cannot look past the numerous counts of arson coupled with the potential for the loss of human life. Many people's lives were severely altered because of the petitioner's actions for profit.
In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing Court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.
The sentence imposed was neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Iannotti, J.
Holden, J.
Miano, J.
Iannotti, J., Miano, J., and Holden, J. participated in this decision.