State of Connecticut v. 162393 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Tyrone Holman.   On the day he was to be tried for the cases that are the subject of this sentence review application, he admitted a violation of probation in file ending in 422;  pleaded guilty in file ending in 546 to the charges of sale of narcotics by a non-drug dependant person and sale within 1500 feet of a school while released on bond;  and pleaded guilty in file ending in 622 to a charge of sale of narcotics by a non-drug dependant person within 1500 feet of a school.   At the time of sentencing, the parties agreed to leave the sentence to the discretion of the trial court and that the sentencing range, including all the enhancements and mandatory minimum sentences, was a total of 67 years.

After hearing comments from the parties and reviewing the relevant circumstances, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 18 years suspended after 11 years including 10 years mandatory minimum, followed by 5 years of probation.

The facts underlying his convictions are as follows.

In the file ending in 422, the defendant was on probation for a 2005 conviction for sale of narcotics and the violation was based in part on the criminal conduct that is the subject of his sentence review application.   His violation of probation sentence was 10 years suspended after 4 years, followed by 5 years of probation.

In file ending in 546 the Bridgeport Police conducted a motor vehicle stop in November of 2008.   The petitioner was a passenger in the car which was stopped because it did not have a proper license plate.   When the police smelled marijuana smoke and searched the petitioner, he was in possession of 21.75 grams of marijuana and 7.5 grams of heroin.

In file ending in 622, the Bridgeport Police made two “controlled buys” in January of 2009 at the petitioner's apartment.   They then obtained a search warrant and while executing it at the petitioner's home, found him in possession of 5.5 grams of heroin and 15.9 grams of marijuana.   When the petitioner committed this crime, he was released on bond in file ending in 546.

At the sentencing hearing before the trial court, the petitioner asked for a sentence of 18 years suspended after 10 years, followed by 5 years of probation.   The state at that time asked for a sentence of 25 years suspended after 18, followed by 5 years of probation.

The petitioner now argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28,¹ even though the incarcerative part of the sentence is only one year more than the sentence he himself requested and is far less than the overall sentence requested by the state.   He asks the Division to consider his claim that he is drug dependant, even though he stands convicted as a non-drug dependant person.   He also asks that the Division consider reducing his sentence based on his assertion that he is both a high school and college graduate.

The state asks that the petitioner's sentence remain unchanged.   It points out that the petitioner committed the two drug crimes that are the subject of his application for sentence review after he had received probation for other drug crimes;  that both of those drug crimes were committed near a school and therefore carry mandatory minimum prison time;  and that both of those drug crimes occurred while the petitioner was out of jail in lieu of bond.   The state also argues that the petitioner has violated virtually every probation that he has ever been given and has spent most of his adult life in prison for his multiple felony convictions.

The Division, having carefully reviewed the facts and the parties' claims, finds that there is no persuasive reason to reduce petitioner's sentence.   He has a horrendous criminal record and a blatant disregard for the law.   In addition, the sentence he received from the trial court was only slightly more than the sentence that the petitioner asked to have imposed.   That sentence is well within the parameters of Section 43-28.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. 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.”.  FN1. 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., Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., J.'s