2006 Ct. Sup. 6374
Nos. CR97-169552, CR02-202293Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain
March 28, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
THOMAS P. MIANO, CARMEN ESPINOSA, AND FRANK IANNOTTI, JUDGES.
In 2002 police received information that a person named “Shadow” was selling narcotics in New Britain. As part of their investigation police set up a controlled narcotics purchase from “Shadow.” Police arrested “Shadow,” the petitioner, and he was in possession of 18 heat-sealed baggies of heroin at the time of the arrest.
At the time of the narcotics arrest the petitioner was on probation for Conspiracy to Commit Murder in which on September 27, 1999, the petitioner was sentenced to a term of 10 years incarceration, execution suspended after serving 27 months and 4 years of probation. The petitioner’s additional exposure on the Violation of Probation charge was up to 7 years and 9 months incarceration.
The petitioner’s criminal history included, inter alia, a prior conviction for Sale of Narcotics in 1992 in which petitioner received a suspended sentence and probation.
On April 19, 2004 the petitioner entered a plea of guilty to Possession of Narcotics with intent to Sell as a Persistent Narcotics Offender and admitted the Violation of Probation. The court imposed a sentence of 18 years incarceration on the narcotics charge and on the violation of probation the court imposed a sentence of 7 years 9 months, concurrent, for a net effective sentence of 18 years incarceration. It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
At the hearing before the Division counsel for the petitioner argued that on the Conspiracy to Commit Murder charge the state was faced with significant problems of proof and the state extended the petitioner an offer of a suspended sentence after time served and probation. Over the contrary advice of counsel, CT Page 6375 the petitioner accepted the offer and was convicted.
Counsel for the petitioner opined that the state held a firm stance against the petitioner in plea negotiations in order to engage the petitioner as a witness for the state in a gang related prosecution.
Counsel stressed that petitioner’s initial narcotics conviction was when petitioner was a tender 18 years of age and that the instant narcotics matter was 10 years later and did not involve a large amount of narcotics — 18 bags at only $10 a bag which amounts to 1/2 gram. Under these facts, counsel argued, the sentence imposed was “excessive.”
The petitioner addressed the Division and related that on the conspiracy to commit murder charge the petitioner turned himself in; that the prosecutor offered the petitioner “a deal to go home . . . I just wanted to go home to my family . . .” In the instant narcotics case petitioner claims “I was just asking for help . . . and got 18 years.” Petitioner further related, “I’m not asking to be set free tomorrow . . . just asking (Division) to be fair . . .”
Counsel for the state related the sentencing court’s comments at the time of sentencing and requested that the violation of probation sentence be modified and imposed consecutively to the narcotics charge.
The sentencing court carefully reviewed the petitioner’s on-going criminal history of assaults, threatening, carrying a pistol without a permit, sale of narcotics, conspiracy to commit murder and the instant possession with intent to sell. The court related that petitioner’s exposure to incarceration is up to 37 years 9 months. The trial court rejected defense counsel’s recommendation for a lesser sentence and stated: . . .” (T)he court is not going to impose what counsel has suggested as a moderate sentence because that, in this court’s opinion, would discourage the purpose of probation, would reward someone with a violent history of guns and assaults, and would minimize the probation for a conspiracy to commit murder when a new felony is committed.” (Transcript, July 27, 2004, pps. 26-27.)
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 CT Page 6376 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 criminal history of the petitioner wherein petitioner was previously convicted of a serious narcotics charge, the nature of the present similar conviction, and the substantial exposure relevant to petitioner being on probation at the time of the instant offense, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.
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. CT Page 6377