State of Connecticut v. Jose Melendez (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Jose Melendez, was convicted by a jury of two counts of sale of narcotics by a non-drug dependant person ¹ and two counts of sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a daycare center.²  The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 30 years of incarceration.   The petitioner appealed his conviction, but the trial court's decision was affirmed.   See State v. Melendez, 291 Conn 693 aff'd (2009).

A detailed rendition of the facts can be found in the Supreme Court decision.   For purposes of the petitioner's sentence review application, however, the facts can be stated as follows.   In the Fall of 2004, the state and federal law enforcement authorities conducted a joint investigation into drug trafficking which occurred at a restaurant in the City of New Haven.   On two separate occasions, October 8 and October 14, an informant who was cooperating with the state and federal authorities purchased cocaine from the petitioner inside the restaurant.   Each drug transaction was recorded on audio and video tape.

The petitioner claims that his sentence is “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28 ³ in light of the fact that there were “only” two sales of cocaine involving approximately $20 worth of drugs on each occasion.   Further, the petitioner argues that because he has spent all of his adult life in prison he had no other way to earn a living other than to deal narcotics.   The petitioner attributes his criminal misbehavior to the “zeal of youth,” his underprivileged background and his claim that he has lacked an opportunity to improve his life.

The state asks the Division to reject the petitioner's request for a reduced sentence.   It points out that the petitioner was arrested for selling drugs less than six months after being released from federal prison on a racketeering conviction for which he received a 9-year sentence.   The state also argues that petitioner is a long-time gang member, a career criminal and was implicated in a plot to murder another prison inmate.   Finally, the state asserts that the petitioner has refused to take advantage of opportunities for education and job training while he was incarcerated and continues to pose a grave danger to society.

The Division only has the authority to reduce a criminal sentence that falls outside of the parameters of Section 43-28.   The sentence imposed on the petitioner is clearly within the limitations established by that provision.   The petitioner has a history of violent crime and illegal narcotics activity.   He shows no remorse for his criminal misconduct and offers no bona fide reason to reduce his sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J. and Fischer, B., J. participated in this decision.⁴

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 21a-278(b).  This crime carries a minimum of five years and maximum of twenty years of incarceration..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 21a-278(b).  This crime carries a minimum of five years and maximum of twenty years of incarceration.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 21a-278a(b).  This crime requires the imposition of three-year sentence which must be in addition to and consecutive to any sentence imposed for violation of General Statutes Section 21a-278..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 21a-278a(b).  This crime requires the imposition of three-year sentence which must be in addition to and consecutive to any sentence imposed for violation of General Statutes Section 21a-278.

FN3. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN3. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

FN4. At the time of the petitioner's sentence review application hearing, the judges who participated in this decision were the only judges available and the petitioner was offered an opportunity to postpone his sentence review hearing until a later date when a third judge would be available.   He was also told that if he wanted to proceed, the two judges who were available would proceed with the hearing and render a decision as authorized by General Statutes 51-194.   After consulting with his counsel and being canvassed by White, J., the petitioner voluntarily decided to proceed with a two-judge panel in lieu of a three-judge panel..  FN4. At the time of the petitioner's sentence review application hearing, the judges who participated in this decision were the only judges available and the petitioner was offered an opportunity to postpone his sentence review hearing until a later date when a third judge would be available.   He was also told that if he wanted to proceed, the two judges who were available would proceed with the hearing and render a decision as authorized by General Statutes 51-194.   After consulting with his counsel and being canvassed by White, J., the petitioner voluntarily decided to proceed with a two-judge panel in lieu of a three-judge panel.

White, Gary J., Fischer, Brian T., J.s