State of Connecticut v. 334398 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner, Michael Walsh, entered a plea to one count of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48(a) and 53a-134 and one count of Failure to Appear in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172.   The court indicated a maximum penalty of sixteen years to serve, execution suspended after twelve years, followed by five years of probation with the right to argue for a lesser sentence.   The court imposed sixteen years to serve, execution suspended after eleven years, followed by five years of probation.   It is from this sentence that the petitioner seeks review.

The charges brought against the petitioner relate to a robbery which occurred during a drug transaction.   A total of four participants took part in this robbery.   One of the victims died as a result of being struck by a table leg.   The petitioner did not inflict the fatal blow to the victim, but had been an active planner of the robbery in the days preceding the incident, as well as the participant who supplied the weapon, the table leg.   At the time of the incident, the petitioner was seventeen years old.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner asked the panel to order a “symbolic decrease” in the sentence.   Counsel argued that because the petitioner was young that there was hope for him.   The petitioner asked the Division for a chance to “prove that he could be a productive member of society.”   Counsel for the State addressed the Division and indicated that the evidence against the petitioner proved that he was a willing participant in a robbery which resulted in the death of one of the victims.   The State argued that the plea agreement, with the right to argue for less, took into account the petitioner's age.

The court took into account the acceptance of responsibility by the petitioner when he entered a guilty plea.   However, the court found that based upon all of the circumstances that the petitioner deserved a “substantial” penalty.   (Transcript at page 47.)

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 this crime, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Iannotti, J.

White, J.

Alexander, J., lannotti, J., White, J. participated in this decision.

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