2008 Ct. Sup. 2923
No. CR06-220125Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield, Geographic Area 2 at Bridgeport
February 26, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
FRANK A. IANNOTTI, GARY J. WHITE, JOAN K. ALEXANDER, JUDGES.
The petitioner, Joanne Warren, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of Larceny in the Fifth Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-125a, and received 6 months incarceration on each, consecutive to each other; one count of Credit Card Theft, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-128c(b), and received 1 year incarceration consecutive to counts one and two; four counts of Forgery in the Third Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-140
and received 6 months incarceration consecutive to each other and consecutive to the previous counts; four counts of Criminal Impersonation, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-130, and received 6 months incarceration consecutive to each other on the first two counts and consecutive to the previous counts, and unconditional discharges on the last two counts of Criminal Impersonation, two counts of Larceny in the Sixth Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-129d, and received unconditional discharges on each, and Identify Theft, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-125b, and received 5 years ES, 5 years probation, consecutive to the previous counts. The total effective sentence imposed is 10 years ESA 5 years, 5 years probation. It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.
The following facts are derived from the arrest warrant. On September 3, 2006, officers of the Trumbull Police Department responded to a report of a fraud complaint. The officers met with Ellen Mallozzi who gave a written statement stating that approximately three weeks prior she had received a bill from JC Penny’s Department Store with purchases that she did not make. The purchases were made on a JC Penny credit card at the JC Penny’s Department Store at the Trumbull Mall. The victim indicated that the first purchase was made on July 18, 2006 for the amount of $401.74. The next three purchases were made on July 29, 2006 for the amounts of $66.95, $42.99, and $400.00 for a total amount of $911.68.
Mallozzi stated that she did not make the purchases and that the only person that she could think of that would have done this is a Joanne CT Page 2924 Warren who cleaned her house on one occasion. The reason she believed it was Warren was because some gift cards were missing around the same time that this occurred and the only one she could think of who did that was Warren.
The officers then contacted the defendant and she related to the officers that she used the credit cards, which were given to her by Mallozzi’s daughter, Sarah Mallozzi.
After a lengthy investigation, it was learned that the defendant, Joanne Warren was in possession of a gold card from JC Penny’s which was never received by the victim. Warren surrendered the credit card to the Trumbull Police Department and was arrested and charged.
Counsel for the petitioner indicates that her client cooperated fully with the police and her intention is to make full restitution. The sentence is disproportionate with the crime. Counsel asks for a reduction down to three years incarceration with restitution. The petitioner has been involved in the use of narcotics for many years. The convictions before the Division are primarily misdemeanor convictions.
The petitioner addressed the Division and stated that she used bad judgment. The petitioner claims that she was under the belief she had the permission of the victim to use her credit card. “I am willing to pay restitution!”
The state argued the court took into account the past history of the petitioner, which is very similar to the present convictions. There was no deterrent effect from her past history.
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 petitioner has numerous larceny and forgery convictions dating back to 1999. She has had prior opportunities on probation as well as thirty months incarceration in 2004. The sentencing court commented on CT Page 2925 her past history and opportunities to conform her behavior. The court was left with little alternative other than to impose the fair and appropriate sentence.
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 2926