Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D's ex-husband, Letendre, allowed D to move into his South St. Paul home on a temporary basis after a rent increase forced her to move out of her apartment. D usually slept on the living room couch; when Letendre's and Spain's adult daughter was away, D would sometimes sleep in her bedroom. Letendre testified that during the few months that he allowed D to live in his home, he repeatedly rebuffed D's suggestions that he put her name on the deed to his house. Letendre was awakened by his dog. He heard a 'thud,' as well as a 'tinny' noise that sounded like tin cans falling on the floor. He immediately looked down the hallway and saw D walking quickly toward the living room. Letendre also saw a 2-foot-high wall of flames that ran the length of his bed rising up from the hardwood floor. Letendre attempted to smother the fire by throwing his bed comforter on the fire and stomping on it with his feet. He saw D standing in the living room, staring into his bedroom. D then came running down the hallway, yelling that the house was on fire. Letendre told D to take his dog outside. He ran into the kitchen and dialed 911. Letendre was treated and then released the following day. He received burns to more than six percent of his body while trying to smother the fire. Fire investigators found a partially burned can of charcoal lighter fluid on Letendre's bedroom floor, and detected a burn pattern that ran along the side of Letendre's bed and along the foot of the bed. D was fully dressed, showed no signs of soot or smoke on her clothes, and was not coughing. D was subsequently arrested and charged with first-degree arson. The burn pattern found on the bedroom floor indicated the fire had been set deliberately. A fire captain also testified that he was familiar with the brand of lighter fluid found in Letendre's bedroom, that its container would not empty if accidentally knocked over, and that a different pour pattern would have been found on the bedroom floor if the lighter fluid had accidentally spilled onto the floor. D was found guilty of first-degree arson. D was sentenced to 144 months. This sentence constituted a triple durational departure from the 48-month presumptive sentence set forth in the sentencing guidelines. The trial court found the following aggravating circumstances justified this greater-than-double durational departure from the presumed sentence: (1) 'the offense was committed with premeditation and with a certain degree of stealth and planning'; (2) the offense was committed with 'particular cruelty' to Letendre; (3) Letendre suffered serious physical injuries; (4) Letendre also suffered 'significant emotional and psychological trauma'; (5) Ds actions violated Letendre's zone of privacy and exploited the trust he had extended to her; and (6) Letendre's alcohol consumption had left him particularly vulnerable at the time of the offense.
The court of appeals affirmed this sentence. D contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a greater-than-double durational sentencing departure in the absence of severe aggravating circumstances.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co