August 11, 2022
By: Dwayne Page
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the conviction of courthouse arsonist Gary Wayne Ponder.
The 12-page opinion of the court, delivered on Wednesday, August 10 by Judge Robert Wedemeyer, affirmed the trial court’s judgment “after a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities” in the case against Ponder, who was convicted in July, 2019 of aggravated arson for setting fire in a DeKalb County Courthouse vestibule recycling bin on June 14, 2016 causing more than $100,000 in damage to the building. The 59 year old Ponder is serving a 23 year prison sentence in the Morgan County Correctional Complex.
Through the District Public Defender’s office, Ponder filed an appeal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erred when it denied a motion for a change of venue, and that the trial court erred when it sentenced Ponder.
In the appeal, Ponder claimed that he should have been granted a motion for a change of venue because his trial actually took place in the same courthouse building where the fire occurred and that this may have had an influence on the jury that tried him.
The appellate court saw it differently. “The record demonstrates the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant’s (change of venue) motion. The trial court considered the host of factors relevant to a change of venue determination, and it noted that there was no evidence that any of the jurors were affected by the location of the crime and the trial both being in the DeKalb County courthouse. It also noted that the jurors had not indicated much or any awareness of publicity about the facts of the case that would have come out at the time of the incident. The Defendant (Ponder) has provided nothing more than mere speculation and certainly did not demonstrate that the jurors who actually sat on the jury were biased or prejudiced against him because of the connection between the crime’s location and the trial venue. Accordingly, the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this claim,” according to the opinion of the appellate court.
On the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the appellate court opined that “the evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was that the Defendant (Ponder) 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. As to the Defendant’s contention that he lacked the requisite mental state for the crime, Dr. Pamela Auble (a Neuro-Psychologist) 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,” the appellate court found.
Ponder also asserted that he did not deserve a 23-year prison sentence.
“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,” according to the opinion of the appellate court.
“We conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant (Ponder). The trial court considered the relevant principles and sentenced the Defendant to a within range sentence. Based on the evidence at trial and the Defendant’s criminal history provided in the presentence report, the sentence imposed was not excessive, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief as to this issue. In conclusion, after a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment,” stated the appellate court in its opinion as delivered by Judge Wedemeyer.