2005 Ct. Sup. 15363
No. CR02-559073Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
November 22, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
FRANK A. IANNOTTI, THOMAS P. MIANO, CARMEN E. ESPINOSA, JUDGES.
The petitioner, Lorenzo Grant, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of C.G.S. 53a-60(a)(3). He was sentenced to five years incarceration. It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.
On June 8, 2001, Hartford Police reported to St. Francis Hospital on the report of a stabbing victim. A witness reported that a dark skinned man engaged the victim in a fistfight and when the victim returned to the car, he was wounded. The victim insisted on driving to the hospital even though he had a punctured lung, part of which had to be removed. He had been stabbed five times.
The victim and witness had been in the area of South Marshall Street, looking for employment as power washers, when they encountered “Little Low” otherwise known as Lorenzo Grant. He was arrested on April 11, 2002.
Counsel for the petitioner admits his client stabbed the victim. At trial he had maintained self-defense, but now concedes he must take full responsibility. Counsel submits his client was never raised by anyone, he was left to fend for himself. The state had recommended a split sentence. The Court abused its discretion by taking no heed to the recommendation. The petitioner is seeking a halfway house and an opportunity to begin counseling.
The petitioner addressed the Division. I want to go home, I learned my lesson. I am focused and I wished to be a productive member of society.
The state argued the trial court felt this was an outrageous CT Page 15364 street crime. The petitioner has an extensive narcotics background. The Court heard the evidence and considered all factors before imposing a fair sentence.
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 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 a sentence except in accordance with the provisions of the Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194
et seq.
The victim was stabbed five times by the petitioner and nearly lost his life. The state had appropriately charged Assault in the First Degree. Although the jury convicted of Assault in the Second Degree, it was totally appropriate for the Court to consider all the facts and evidence when deciding the sentence. The Court did that and believed the five years was appropriate for such a serious and reckless crime. The trial Court stated “. . . this is a case which should have a sentence . . . where your client would be looking at twelve to fifteen to serve and then some protections to help him after he pays his debt to society for a truly outrageous street crime.”
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.
CT Page 15365