State of Connecticut v. Monteral Morris (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Monteral Morris, petitioner, entered pleas of guilty to the following offenses:  one count of Robbery in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(2) with a penalty of not less than five years to twenty years;  one count of Assault in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1) with a penalty of not less than five years to twenty years;  and, one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 with a penalty of not less than two to five years.   The plea agreement was for a sentence of not more than eighteen years and not less than thirteen years.   The court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of fifteen years to serve.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis involves the petitioner and a co-defendant committing a robbery in which the victim suffered two gunshot wounds:  one to the abdomen, which resulted in the victim wearing a colostomy bag, and one was to the leg, which may require an amputation in the future.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was inappropriate because the petitioner's co-defendant received a sentence of thirteen years.   Counsel requested the same sentence for the petitioner.   The petitioner offered his condolences to the victim.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the petitioner was the “instigator” of this incident.   The sentencing court found that the petitioner was convicted of “a very serious series of events that led up to the permanent disability of a young human being, and that deserves just punishment and significant punishment.”  (Transcript at page 27.)

Pursuant to 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 Practice Book § 43-23 et seq. and General Statute § 51-194, et seq.   Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as well as the petitioner's 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 Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

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

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