State of Connecticut v. 341545 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Diane Parisen, voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge of arson in the second degree ¹ and agreed with the state to allow the trial court to impose a sentence of 20 years suspended after 10 years, 3 years probation.   It was further agreed by the parties that the petitioner would have the right to argue to the trial court for a lesser sentence.   The trial court, after reviewing the pre-sentence investigation report and hearing comments from the parties, ultimately sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 20 years, suspended after 6 years, followed by 3 years of probation.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction involve her plan to fraudulently collect insurance money by setting her summer cottage on fire.   On September 30, 2003, the petitioner's cousin, Brian Carvar used a candle to intentionally set the house on fire after the petitioner, on an earlier date, promised to pay him five thousand dollars in exchange for his agreement to torch the property.   After the building burned down, the petitioner's insurance company offered to pay her $150,000, but she refused the offer and held out for as much as $200,000.

On February 12, 2004, Carvar informed the police about the conspiracy after the petitioner failed to pay him for starting the fire.   He later, at the behest of the police, had several taped telephone conversations with the petitioner in which she essentially admitted that she hatched the plan to bilk the insurance company.   Thereafter both the petitioner and Carvar were arrested.   Both the petitioner and her co-defendant, Carvar, were prosecuted and sentenced in the Judicial District of Tolland and sentenced by the same trial judge.

The petitioner asks for a three-year reduction in her sentence.   She argues that the requested modification will bring her sentence more in line with the sentence received by Carvar, who received a 9-year suspended sentence.   The petitioner argues that the co-defendant is a convicted felon who abuses drugs and is the person who actually set the fire.   In contrast, she points out that she had no criminal record prior to this incident and has a number of medical and emotional problems that contributed to her misconduct.

The state argues that the sentence should remain unchanged.   It points out that the petitioner was the “mastermind” of the plot and that she carried out an elaborate plan with the hopes of defrauding as much money as possible from the insurance company.   In addition, the state argues that through her criminal misbehavior, the petitioner put the lives of police, firemen and other first responders at risk when they were required to quell the blaze.

The trial court accepted the state's arguments.   In addition, it indicated that the general public deserves protection from the petitioner and noted that instead of accepting full responsibility for her wrongdoing, the petitioner tried to shift the blame away from herself and onto her co-defendant.

The Division only has authority to modify criminal sentences which are “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.²  In this matter, the sentence imposed by the trial court clearly falls within the parameters of that provision.   The trial court was intimately familiar with the facts, the background of each co-defendant and the seriousness of the criminal conduct that was involved.   Further, the petitioner received a sentence of actual incarceration that was four years less than the maximum amount she agreed to and that she could have received under her agreement with the state for a sentence of 20 years suspended after 10 years with the right to argue for less.   Under the totality of the circumstances here, the sentence imposed is fair, just and reasonable.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J., Iannotti, J., Alexander, J.

White, J., Iannotti, J. and Alexander, J. participated in this decision.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a-112(a)(2).   This crime carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a-112(a)(2).   This crime carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

FN2. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN2. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

White, Gary J., Iannotti, Frank A., Alexander, Joan K., J.s