2005 Ct. Sup. 11443
No. CR99-486773Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
April 26, 2005
MIANO, HOLDEN, IANNOTTI, JUDGES.
Ira Alston, petitioner, was convicted by jury verdict of: Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm, a violation of General Statutes Sec. 53a-55a, which provides for a penalty of not less than 5 years nor more than 40 years incarceration and Carrying a Pistol Without a Permit, a violation of C.G.S. Sec. 29-35(a), which provides for a penalty of not less than one year nor more than 5 years incarceration. The trial court imposed a net effective sentence of 35 years to serve on the manslaughter charge and three years concurrent on the pistol charge. It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
The record reflects that on December 8, 1999, a 39-year old male victim was found on the streets of New Haven suffering from a gunshot wound to the chest from which he expired. The defendant was convicted by the jury verdict. Counsel for the petitioner took issue with the trial court and the legislature. Counsel represented that the trial court “made a unilateral finding of fact: that the crime was intentional.” Counsel opined that such a finding is outside the purview of the court.
Counsel further is critical of the promulgation by the legislature of the crime of Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm (C.G.S. Sec. 53a-55) which provides a 40-year maximum penalty as opposed to the 20-year maximum for manslaughter in the first degree. Counsel questions the wisdom of providing double the penalty for homicide by firearm as opposed to homicide by other means. Counsel also opined that the statute in issue “eliminates any type of pretrial.” Counsel claims that putting a 16-year-old (the age of his client at the time of the offense) in jail is inhumane. Counsel related that petitioner is doing 35 years for manslaughter and we do not know if it’s “intentional or reckless.”
Counsel for the state countered that the situation was one of an “armed drug dealer plying his trade on the streets of New CT Page 11444 Haven.” Counsel for the state points out that defense counsel characterized the mens rea issue as the petitioner’s “intent to cause serious physical injury” (Transcript, November 1, 2002, page 16). Counsel further notes the petitioner’s exposure is 45 years incarceration.
The trial court in its sentencing remarks commented, “One, you were selling drugs virtually on a public street. You had a gun handy to protect your trade. You thought you were about to be robbed; you got your gun, and you opened fire. You killed Mr. Tolliver when he got caught in your line of fire. Whether he was a potential customer or just a passerby is immaterial . . . You were not shooting at him. The law makes no distinction. You killed him nevertheless, and your conduct was intentional. When you shot him, the jury found that you had the intent to cause serious physical injury to another person.” (Id., page 19.)
It is clear to the Division that the trial court did not sentence the petitioner on any “intent to kill” basis. The court articulated the aggravating factors: you were dealing drugs virtually on a public street; you had a gun; you were willing to use it to protect your trade, you did it, and you killed Mr. Tolliver. (Id.)
The trial court concluded, “Drugs and guns are societal problems independent of each other. When you use one to protect the other on a public street, the dangers of both are magnified.” (Id., p. 20.)
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in the scope of its 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 Connecticut General Statute § 51-194, et seq.
Taking into consideration the serious nature of the crime wherein the life of a human being was senselessly taken, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate. CT Page 11445
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 IS AFFIRMED.
MIANO, J.
HOLDEN, J.
IANNOTTI, J.
Miano, J., Holden, J., and Iannotti, participated in this decision.
CT Page 11440