STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GARY WAYNE PONDER

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2021-00940-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; August 10, 2022; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Gary Wayne Ponder was convicted of aggravated arson for setting fire to the DeKalb County Courthouse, resulting in a twenty-three-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the trial court's denial of his motion for a change of venue, and the sentencing decision. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments after reviewing the case.

Prior to trial, Ponder requested a change of venue due to the crime's location, arguing that the local community's connection to the courthouse could bias jurors. The trial court deferred the decision until after jury selection. During voir dire, jurors expressed that their judgment would not be influenced by the crime's location and had no preconceived notions about Ponder's guilt. After jury selection, Ponder renewed his motion, but the trial court denied it, citing the jurors' assurances of impartiality.

During the trial, Timothy Stribling, the mayor and manager of county property, testified about witnessing the fire and initiating an evacuation of the courthouse. The fire caused significant damage, particularly in the lower courtroom area, where it originated from a recycling bin. The court determined that the empaneled jury was fair, and the evidence presented was adequate to uphold the conviction.

Mr. Stribling filed insurance claims following a fire incident at the courthouse, which underwent repairs over two months. On June 14, 2016, attorney Jim Judkins arrived at the courthouse and witnessed a fire in a recycling bin, with the Defendant present nearby. Judkins noted the Defendant appeared intoxicated and attempted to extinguish the flames after alerting others to call the fire department. Police officer Brandon Donnelle, who responded to the fire call, found smoke in the lower level and the Defendant nearby. The Defendant admitted to putting out a cigarette in the bin. Security footage showed the Defendant lingering near the bin before flames erupted, while bystanders tried to intervene. 

Mary Frances Smith, the Defendant's mother, testified to his disorientation that day. Dr. Pamela Auble, a neuropsychologist, assessed the Defendant and identified him as having low mental functioning, liver disease, and prescription pill abuse, which contributed to his confusion and bizarre behavior. Medical records indicated he was acutely mentally impaired with opioids present in his system on the morning of the incident. Dr. Auble concluded that the Defendant lacked the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions due to his mental impairment. The jury ultimately found the Defendant guilty of aggravated arson based on the evidence presented.

The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing where Tiffany Campbell, an employee of the Tennessee Department of Correction, testified about the Defendant's extensive criminal history, which included multiple drug-related offenses and fraud. The Defendant had a history of probation, with six violations and a prior parole violation. DeKalb County Mayor Timothy Stribling testified that the Defendant set fire to a recycling bin in the courthouse, causing $120,000 in damages, with the county responsible for a $500 deductible.

During sentencing, the trial judge considered the evidence from the trial, the presentence report, sentencing principles, and arguments regarding both mitigation and enhancement factors. Despite the possibility of classifying the Defendant as a Range 2 offender, he was determined to be a Range 1 offense. 

The court acknowledged several enhancement factors presented by the State: 

1. The Defendant's prior criminal behavior, which included at least three felony convictions, warranted substantial weight in enhancing the conviction.
2. The significant damage caused, quantified at $120,000, was deemed particularly great and factored into the enhancement.
3. The Defendant showed no hesitation in committing a crime that posed a risk to human life, as established by the presence of fifteen people in the courthouse during the incident.

The judge noted the financial implications of the damages on the county and emphasized the severity of the Defendant’s actions.

The court assessed the risk to human life and property loss in determining a sentence for the Defendant, ultimately imposing a twenty-five (25) year sentence. However, considering the Defendant's lack of new criminal behavior while on bond and health issues presented in testimony, the sentence was reduced to twenty-three (23) years, which is a hundred percent (100%) sentence. The Defendant is 56 years old, and the court acknowledged that this sentence would approach the age of 80 at the time of release. 

On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for aggravated arson, arguing that the State did not prove he had the requisite mens rea due to expert testimony from Dr. Auble. The State countered with direct evidence from security footage showing the Defendant igniting a fire. The court's review standard examines whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, considering both direct and circumstantial evidence. The court noted that circumstantial evidence alone could also establish a criminal offense.

The jury is responsible for determining the weight and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence, assessing whether such circumstances align with guilt or innocence. The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence is consistent for both direct and circumstantial evidence. Courts do not re-evaluate evidence or substitute their inferences for those of the jury. Credibility and the value of witness testimony, along with factual issues, are decided by the jury, which, when rendering a guilty verdict, endorses the State's witnesses and theories. The trial judge and jury have the unique ability to assess the demeanor and credibility of witnesses in person, making them the primary arbiters of justice. The appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, acknowledging all reasonable inferences. A guilty verdict shifts the burden to the defendant to prove the evidence was insufficient to justify the conviction. In this case, a person can be convicted of arson for knowingly damaging a structure through fire, and aggravated arson applies when individuals are present. The nature of the act—creating a fire—is central to the offense, and awareness of the conduct suffices for the mens rea requirement. Evidence indicated that the defendant set a fire in a courthouse vestibule while multiple people were inside, supported by video footage and his own admission, providing a reasonable basis for the jury to find him guilty of aggravated arson.

The Defendant argued he lacked the necessary mental state for the crime due to a drug-induced medical delirium, a defense that the jury, after hearing Dr. Auble’s testimony, rejected. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, denying any relief on this basis. Additionally, the Defendant claimed the trial court erred by denying his motion for a change of venue, asserting that the trial location in the same building where the crime occurred was inappropriate, potentially biasing jurors. The State countered that the Defendant failed to demonstrate juror bias or exposure to pretrial publicity, as all selected jurors affirmed their ability to judge impartially. The court upheld the trial court's discretion in denying the venue change, noting that a fair trial is not automatically compromised by a juror's prior knowledge of the case. Factors considered by the trial court included the nature and extent of pretrial publicity, juror familiarity with the case, and the absence of evidence indicating juror bias regarding the trial location. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling.

The Defendant failed to provide evidence of juror bias related to the trial venue and, therefore, his claim for relief is denied. Regarding sentencing, the Defendant argues that his twenty-three-year sentence exceeds the minimum fifteen-year sentence, asserting that the trial court improperly emphasized his prior non-violent drug convictions in determining his sentence for a violent offense. The State contends that the trial court acted within its discretion by appropriately applying enhancing factors to the sentence. 

On appeal, the burden is on the Defendant to prove the sentence is improper, with appellate review adhering to an abuse of discretion standard and a presumption of reasonableness. An abuse of discretion is found only if the trial court's reasoning lacks substantial evidence. The trial court must consider various factors, including trial evidence, presentence reports, sentencing principles, and mitigating and enhancement factors. In this case, the trial court acknowledged the evidence and arguments presented, applied two enhancement factors—prior criminal history and significant property damage—and noted mitigating health issues. Ultimately, the court imposed a twenty-three-year sentence, which is within the appropriate range and consistent with statutory purposes and principles.

In sentencing within a prescribed range of punishment, the trial court must consider advisory guidelines without being strictly bound by them. The minimum sentence for each felony class reflects the seriousness of the offense, and adjustments to the sentence should be made based on mitigating and enhancement factors specified in T.C.A. 40-35-113 and 40-35-114. Although these factors are advisory, the trial court has discretion in weighing them, allowing it to impose any sentence within the applicable range that aligns with the purposes of the Sentencing Act. Misapplication of factors does not invalidate a sentence unless the court completely deviates from the Sentencing Act. Appellate courts will uphold the trial court's sentence as long as it adheres to the principles of the Sentencing Act. The trial court appropriately sentenced the Defendant after considering relevant principles, and the imposed sentence was deemed neither excessive nor an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this matter, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.