A DeKalb County man found guilty of aggravated arson in 2019 for setting fire to the DeKalb County Courthouse lost an appeal last week. Gary Wayne Ponder, 59, claimed the court erred due to a lack of evidence, denial for a change of venue, and excessive sentencing. Ponder was sentenced to serve 23 years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections for the crime.
On June 15, 2016, Ponder was arrested for setting fire in a courthouse vestibule recycling bin causing more than $100,000 in damages to the building. His 23-year sentence is a Class-A felony, and although he is to serve 100% of the sentence, he could qualify for a 15% reduction with good time credits over the course of the term.
Smithville Police charged Ponder after he was observed on the courthouse surveillance video system intentionally lighting fire in a newspaper recycling bin on the first floor vestibule. The video showed that on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Ponder grabbed newspapers from the recycling bin and started the fire by lighting them with a cigarette lighter. The fire damaged the wall behind the recycling bin and cracked a window in the vestibule near the first floor entrance of the courthouse.
During the sentencing hearing, Assistant District Attorney General Greg Strong asked that Ponder be given the maximum sentence of 25 years due to the seriousness of the offense in that Ponder had no hesitation in committing the crime when the threat to human life was high; that the amount of property damage was exceedingly great; and that Ponder had a history of criminal activity. Witnesses also testified of the structural damage to the courthouse caused by the fire and the number of people who were inside the building at the time whose safety was put at risk.
The total damages to the courthouse came to $120,706.52, which was the amount of the claim paid by the county’s insurance provider. After the fire, smoke had to be cleared from the courthouse, new ceiling tiles and dry wall work were required and a broken glass in the vestibule doorway had to be replaced. The county also installed a new fire alarm system in the courthouse at a cost of $35,363.81.
On appeal, the Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue, and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him, also arguing that he had a diminished mental state.
As to the lack of evidence claim, the appellate court stated in the appeal findings that, “The evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was that the Defendant entered the courthouse and, after spending some time loitering in the vestibule, set an item or items on fire inside the vestibule’s recycling bin. Video recordings show the Defendant’s actions, and he later stated to law enforcement that he had put a cigarette out inside the bin. At the time of the fire, multiple people were inside the courthouse, which housed multiple county offices. This is sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the Defendant was guilty of aggravated arson.”
The court also opined that, “As to the Defendant’s contention that he lacked the requisite mental state for the crime, Dr. [Pamela] Auble opined to the jury that the Defendant was not aware of his actions because of a drug induced medical delirium. The jury heard Dr. Auble’s testimony and chose to reject that defense as is its province as fact finder. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, and the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.”
As for the denial for a change of venue, the court responded that, “The Defendant has made no showing that the jurors were affected by the nature of the crime or exposed to publicity about the crime prior to trial. The State further contends that all of the empaneled jurors affirmed their ability to impartially judge the case irrespective of the location. For these reasons, the State contends that the trial court did not err in denying the motion. We agree with the State.”
In Ponder’s claim that his sentence was too harsh, again the appeals court stood by the sentencing saying, “The Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it sentenced him to serve a twenty-three-year sentence rather than the minimum sentence of fifteen years. He argues that the trial court’s heavy weight placed on his prior criminal history did not account for the fact that his prior convictions were non-violent and only drug related. He contends that this, his first conviction involving violence or threat of harm to others, should have been a shorter sentence. The State responds that the trial court properly enhanced the Defendant’s sentence within its discretion based on the applicable enhancing factors. We agree with the State.”
