State of Connecticut v. 224682 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Angel Gonzalez, was convicted after a jury trial of Murder, a violation of C.G.S. 53a-54 ¹ and received forty-two years incarceration.   The Court heard the evidence of the Violation of Probation simultaneously during the murder trial and found the petitioner in violation of his probation, a violation of C.G.S. 53a-32, by a preponderance of the evidence and sentences the petitioner to three years consecutive.   The total effective sentence imposed is forty-five years incarceration.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The following facts are derived from the arrest warrant.

During the early morning hours of November 16, 2003, Robert Riley went to 198-200 South Marshall Street in Hartford to purchase drugs from the victim.   Riley, the victim, and another person were in the hallway conducting their transaction while a fourth individual, Anthony Mickens, went upstairs.   The defendant, wearing a mask, entered the building and shot the victim two times.   Officer Michael Kot of the Hartford police department arrived on the scene and found the victim on a landing arrived on the scene and found the victim on a landing with no pulse and dilated pupils.   It was later determined that the victim died as a result of bleeding from his gunshot wounds.   The defendant was arrested on December 9, 2003, for this shooting.

The petitioner was on probation for the sale of narcotics at the time of the hearing and the murder allegation was the basis of the violation of probation allegation which led to the petitioner ultimately being found to have violated the terms and conditions of his probation.

Counsel for the petitioner indicates that her client had a tragic childhood.   He was abandoned by his mother.   He had been shot and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

The state believes this was a decent young man.   However, the fact remains this was a brutal retaliatory killing.   The petitioner was on probation at the time of the murder.

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 convictions dating back to 1993.   There are prior crimes of violence.   The petitioner is responsible for the death of the victim.   Ultimately, he must be held accountable for taking the victim's life.   The sentence was fair.

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.

IANNOTTI, J.

WHITE, J.

ALEXANDER, J.

Iannotti, J., White, J., and Alexander, J. participated in this decision.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. C.G.S. 53a-54 carries a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum..  FN1. C.G.S. 53a-54 carries a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum.

Iannotti, Frank A., White, Gary J., Alexander, Joan K., J.s