State of Connecticut v. 343017 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

By the Division

The petitioner, O'Neil Robinson entered a guilty plea to one count of Manslaughter in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-55(a)(3), and received a sentence of sixteen years ESA ten years, followed by five years of probation.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The following facts are relevant to the petitioner's hearing before the Division.

On August 14, 2006 Bridgeport Police went to 316 Wood Avenue on a report of an assault.   Police had a non-responsive victim transported to the hospital.   A witness stated the victim walked up to the Club Azur Cafe with a handsaw when a black male ran over and punched him in the face.   The male then fled and the victim fell to the ground unresponsive.

The bartender told police that the victim approached with a handsaw and appeared to be intoxicated, so he was told to go away.   The bartender called the owners so that police could see a video of the entry area.   The video showed Robinson run up and blind-side the victim who hit his head against the wall and fall to the ground.   Robinson then fled.

When police located Robinson, he was brought back to the cafe for identification and he told police, spontaneously, that he “punched that guy.”   The victim expired from his wounds.   Robinson entered a guilty plea to manslaughter 1st on January 14, 2008.   No appeals as of November 4, 2009.

Counsel for the petitioner implores the Division to review the entire “random act.”   He argues this was a one-punch dare by the friends of the teenage petitioner.   The entire event was captured on video.   Counsel requests a reasonable reduction.

The petitioner addressed the Division and expressed his sorrow.   He knows he must live with this the rest of his life.

The state agrees the petitioner has shown a consistent pattern of remorse.   However, this is still a death case.   The petitioner came out of the shadows with a full head of steam when he struck the victim.   The sentence was fair.

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.

This is a tragedy for both the victim and the petitioner.   However, you take your victim as you find him.   This random act predicated upon a dare resulted in the senseless loss of life.

The sentence was appropriate.

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.

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