2004 Ct. Sup. 16329
No. CR01-175452Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield Juvenile Matters at Bridgeport
October 27, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
IANNOTTI, MIANO, HOLDEN, JUDGES.
SENTENCE AFFIRMED BY THE DIVISION
The petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial on Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes §§53a-48 and 53a-134(a)(4). He received a sentence of 12 years ESA 9 years with 5 years probation. He was also convicted of Robbery in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134a(4) and received 12 years ESA 9 years concurrent; Risk of Injury in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(1) to a minor and received 9 years concurrent. The total effective sentence imposed was 12 years ESA 9 years with 5 years probation.
On November 7, 2001 at 10:45 p.m. Marquis Goethe and the petitioner confronted the victim in his home. Both were at the door with a shotgun while the victim and his 3-year-old daughter were at the home. They announced a robbery and stole a safe with $600 along with video games.
The victim later saw Goethe and informed police who arrested him and obtained a confession which also implicated Reid. The victim also identified Reid.
Counsel for the petitioner argues there is a large disparity in his client’s sentence and the co-defendant. He states his client did not have the gun, Mr. Goethe had the gun. Mr. Goethe cooperated and received a lesser sentence. Counsel asks for the petitioner’s sentence to be reduced.
The petitioner addressed the Division and reiterated his belief the sentence between himself and the co-defendant was unfair and he would like a second chance. CT Page 16330
The state indicates the petitioner has seven prior convictions. He violated every program he was allowed to attend. They point out he was given every opportunity to succeed. The state believes the court gave the petitioner a fair sentence.
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in its scope of review. The Division is to determine whether the sentence imposed “should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, and the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”
The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and the Connecticut General Statutes. § 51-195 et seq.
The sentencing court reviewed the petitioner’s criminal history. The court points out his record goes back to 1997. He violated his probation and was arrested again in 1999 when he began being arrested for his drug involvement. He received all suspended sentences and violated each probation.
The instant offense was a very serious robbery involving a young child. The petitioner has received numerous opportunities to conform his behavior. Instead, the offenses for which he was arrested and ultimately convicted have escalated in seriousness. An appropriately long prison sentence was due.
In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing Court’s actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.
The sentence imposed was neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Iannotti, J.
Miano, J.
Holden, J.
Iannotti, J., Miano, J., and Holden, J. participated in this decision. CT Page 16331