Scott Dunn

GROVE CITY — Scott A. Dunn on Wednesday challenged a judge's sentencing on arson charges in Superior Court as Dunn serves a sentence for the murder of his wife.

Mercer County Judge Thomas Dobson sentenced Dunn in August to 24 to 52 years in state prison. The sentence included the maximum of 120 months for a felony arson that involved endangering firefighters.

Dunn, 29, also was charged with voluntary manslaughter and abuse of a corpse in addition to the two counts of arson, which he believes should have been merged into one count.

In his original admission to the court, Dunn said he and his wife, Brandon "Brandi" C. Montgomery Dunn, began arguing at the home of her parents, who were on vacation.

During the argument, Dunn hit his wife in the head with a hammer. When he realized his wife was dead, he poured gas on the body and elsewhere in the home before setting it on fire Jan. 14, 2006.

In Dunn's appeal, attorney Stephen Misko of Butler said the two counts of arson should have been merged into one count.

"My general sense was that they were going to affirm the sentences for arson, but I think I had a legitimate argument for the merger sentencing issue," Misko said Wednesday. "There is a state Supreme Court case which talks about merger and I had an opportunity to express that, so we will find out."

Misko said Dobson went outside of the guidelines for sentencing on the arson dealing with property charges, which has a usual sentence of 60 to 72 months. Dobson sentenced Dunn to the maximum of 120 to 240 months.

Dobson's opinion on the appeal states the defendant's contention the court abused its discretion by failing to justify the sentence is without merit.

"The reason this court gave for going outside the guidelines was the defendant's motive for starting the fire," the opinion states. "He started the fire to cover up the fact he had killed his wife in an attempt to pin the blame on someone else."

The judge's opinion goes on to say that to protect himself from prosecution, Dunn intentionally put others at risk of injury or death and destroyed his in-laws home.

"This court can think of no better or more appropriate reason for going outside the guidelines," the opinion states. "Defendant's conduct in starting the fire for that reason shows his utter lack of regard for the well-being of the community."

The opinion also states the first arson charge, based upon endangering another person, and the second arson charge, based upon causing damage to property, does not merge because there are different interests of the state at stake.