State of Connecticut v. Cliff Owens (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

BY THE DIVISION

Clifton Owens, petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49(a)(2) and 53a-54a with a penalty of one to twenty years;  and, one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(1) with a penalty of one to ten years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-five years to serve.   It is this sentence that petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis for this conviction is detailed in State v. Owens, 282 Conn. 619 (2007).   The incident occurred as a result of the victim informing the petitioner that she would no longer be able to take care of his child.   The petitioner became upset by this news and returned a few hours later and stabbed the victim.   The victim's twelve-year-old daughter heard the commotion and came outside.   The petitioner then started to chase the victim's child with the knife.   When confronted by a neighbor, the petitioner fled the scene.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was inappropriate because the petitioner had completely accepted responsibility for his actions and was extremely remorseful.   Counsel argued that rehabilitation should be part of petitioner's sentence and that he be allowed back in the community with probation or special parole.   The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that what he had done was “tremendously wrong” and he apologized to the victim.   He stated that he never dreamed of hurting anyone or being in this situation.

The victim addressed the Division and described the severity of her injuries and the effect the incident has had on her and her family.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate, as the victim had helped the petitioner financially and was his child's primary daycare provider.   The State indicated that petitioner's actions were the ultimate betrayal of that relationship and that when he chased the twelve-year-old victim around with the knife, it was “a whisper away from a another murder.”

The sentencing court took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the offense.   The court found that the incident was “wanton and vicious” and that it was aggravated by “the betrayal of trust to the friendship.”  (Transcript at page 33.)

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 the 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 sentences, except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statute § 51-194, et seq.   Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations, as balanced against the petitioner's lack of a criminal history, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   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 is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J.

Alexander, J., Fischer, J., and White;  J. participated in this decision.

White, Gary J., J., Alexander, Joan K., J., Fischer, Brian T., J.