Judge Denies Reprieve For Angelo Reyes

A state judge turned down a convicted Fair Haven arsonist’s plea to get out of prison early, after finding that the ​“harm and devastation that resulted from his actions that seemed centered in greed and monetary gain” warranted his remaining behind bars.

State Superior Court Judge Gerald Harmon issued that decision on April 8 in the case State of Connecticut v. Angelo Reyes. The Independent obtained a copy of the nine-page decision on Tuesday.

Harmon’s decision wholly rejected a motion for sentence modification submitted in March by Reyes and his attorney, Alex Taubes.

That motion, and a subsequent virtual court hearing, concerned a request for the judge to reduce Reyes’ 25-year prison sentence — suspended after 15 years — because of Reyes’s poor health, his loving family and community support, his model behavior behind bars, and his professed innocence of his two arson convictions.

Reyes, a prominent Fair Haven developer and civic leader, has been in prison since 2017, after a jury found him guilty in 2015 of two counts of second-degree arson, among other charges, stemming from his hiring of a father-son duo to torch a house on Downing Street in October 2008 and a BMW on Quinnipiac Avenue in May 2009. (Click here, here, and here to read more about his case.) 

According to Harmon’s April 8 decision, the state judge remained unconvinced by Reyes’ and Taubes’ plea.

“The court should not and cannot ignore the devastation and harm resulting from this act of arson which could have resulted in the loss of human life and required the assistance of 30 – 40 firefighters who valiantly put their lives at risk,” Harmon wrote.

“The court acknowledges the pain and devastation felt by the victim of the car fire. The crime of arson endangers lives and terrifies people. Property and more importantly people’s live were endangered by these actions.”

Therefore, Harmon concluded, ​“after a review and consideration of the information and material presented, and with contemplation of the proper standard, the court finds the defendant has not established ​‘good cause’ to modify the sentence imposed by the trial court. The circumstances presented by the defendant do not establish ​‘good cause’, to wit: ​‘a legally sufficient reason’, to modify the sentence when balanced against the facts and harm created by the serious crime he committed. The defendant has served less than a third of his sentence at the time of this application which the court feels is not even close to sufficient based on the harm and devastation that resulted from his actions that seemed centered in greed and monetary gain.

“For all the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s Motion to Modify Sentence is denied in its entirety.”

Click here to read Harmon’s decision in full.

Taubes told the Independent on Tuesday that he is ​“deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling. The judge had the opportunity to do justice here, but his ruling is not even close to just.”

He criticized the judge’s statement about how Reyes’ actions appeared to be ​“centered in greed and monetary gain.”

“[H]as there ever been any evidence of how Angelo would gain from these fires?” Taubes asked. ​“Angelo stood to gain nothing from either fire. You want to buy a house, so you burn it down? It makes no sense. How would he gain anything from a car fire that prosecutors said was done out of spite.”

Taubes also pointed to evidence he said shows that it’s possible that neither fire was an arson. Click here to read Reyes’ and Taubes’ sentence modification memo in full, which includes their argument for why Reyes is innocent.)

Now that Harmon has turned down this sentence modification request… what’s next?

Taubes said that Reyes cannot apply again for a sentence modification for five years under a state law passed in 2021. He also pointed out that Reyes has three pending cases challenging his conviction, including this case, in which Reyes and Taubes have petitioned for a new trial.