State of Connecticut v. Kathleen White (2010)

BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner is Kathleen White.   In each of the docket numbers for which she has applied for sentence review, the petitioner voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of narcotics ¹ and agreed to a concurrent 6-year “cap” with the right to argue for a reduced sentence.   The trial court, after reviewing the facts and hearing sentencing arguments from the parties, ultimately sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 4 years to serve.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   The petitioner was a participant in the New Haven “drug court” and was convicted of the narcotics charges on July 1, 2009.   Pursuant to her guilty pleas, the trial court released the petitioner from custody and ordered her to successfully complete a drug rehabilitation program.   Within one month of being in that program, however, she was discharged due to her threatening behavior toward the staff and because she was found in possession of drug vials.   She was then returned to court and given an opportunity to explain her behavior.   The trial court, however, did not believe the petitioner's explanation and, based on her criminal history and insincere efforts to get treatment, imposed a sentence of incarceration.

The petitioner argues that she was partially successful in her treatment because she did not render a “dirty urine” during her time in the treatment program and further asserts that she never threatened anyone while in the program.   She claims that any difficulty she may have had in the program was due to the health problems she had that are separate from her drug addiction.   In light of these factors, she claims that she deserves a reduced sentence.

The state asks that the petitioner's sentence remain as is.   It claims that the petitioner, through her misbehavior and refusal to accept responsibility for her actions, has demonstrated that she is not genuinely interested in getting treatment.   She therefore, according to the state, merits the jail sentence that she received.

The Division is without authority to modify a criminal sentence unless it is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.²  After considering the factual circumstances, the petitioner's criminal history and the parties' respective arguments, it is clear that the sentence imposed by the trial court is both appropriate and proportionate.   The petitioner refuses to acknowledge her misconduct while in the drug treatment program and has refused to make a sincere effort to get drug treatment.   The sentence imposed was fair and just under the totality of the circumstances.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Iannotti, J.

Alexander, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 21a-279(a).   Each count of this offense carries a maximum sentence of seven years of incarceration..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 21a-279(a).   Each count of this offense carries a maximum sentence of seven years of incarceration.

FN2. 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.”.  FN2. 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.”

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