Opinion
No. FBT CR05-20849
October 5, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Randal Licari, was convicted after a jury trial of Arson in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-111, and received thirteen years incarceration, Larceny in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-122(a)(2), and received twenty years ESA five years, five years probation, consecutive to count one, Insurance Fraud, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-215(a)(1), and received five years concurrent to count one, and Conspiracy, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-48, 53a-215(a)(1) and 53a-122(a)(2) and received five years concurrent.
C.G.S. 53a-111 is a Class A felony which carries a sentence of not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years imprisonment.
The following facts are derived from the arrest warrant affidavit.
The offender's house in Trumbull burned down on or about December 15, 2002. An investigation of the event determined that the fire was an "undetermined" origin. The offender had filed bankruptcy in April 2002 and he had a contentious relationship with his daughter who was living at the home for a period.
At one point police found stolen items from a home burglary where the daughter, Heather Licari, was residing and the discovery led to questions about the items. Heather Licari told police that her father had admitted to setting the fire and told her how he had done it. Additional investigation found evidence that supports arson and insurance fraud. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. See also 115 Conn.App. 633, aff'd (2009).
Counsel for the petitioner argued his client's good character. He worked for twenty-seven consecutive years. Counsel believes the sentence is disproportionate to the crime. A sentence of ten years is more appropriate. Mr. Licari had no criminal record prior to the incident.
The state argued both the seriousness of the offense and the ample evidence to convict. There were items later discovered that were removed from the home prior to the fire. Many people including emergency personnel could have been injured as a result of this crime.
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in the scope of its 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 the Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
The sentencing court recognized this as a two-part crime; the torching of the home and the bilking of the insurance company. The court stated this is "part of a dastardly overall scheme of personal greed."
The petitioner seems fortunate that no one was injured or he could easily have been sentenced to a far greater term of imprisonment.
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.