State of Connecticut v. 59625 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Alberto Bruno, was convicted by a jury of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, sale of narcotics, sale of narcotics by a non-drug dependant person, sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school and conspiracy to sell narcotics by a non-drug dependant person and received a total effective sentence from the trial court of 10 and 1/2 years in prison, including a mandatory minimum sentence of 8 years.¹

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   On April 12, 2005, the petitioner and two co-defendants conspired to sell drugs in a Bridgeport apartment building where the petitioner worked as the superintendent.   The petitioner, on that date, worked in concert with three other men to sell a quantity of heroin to an undercover police officer.   Shortly after one of the other men actually sold the drugs to the officer, all of them were arrested and the petitioner was found in possession of money connected with the illegal sale.   His accomplices, when arrested, were in possession of money from the sale, a weapon and ammunition.

The petitioner asks for a reduction in his sentence to the mandatory minimum eight years required by law.   He argues that his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28 ² because he says his wife needs him at home to support his family and he was gainfully employed at the time of his conviction.

The State argues against any reduction in the petitioner's sentence.   It points out that the petitioner was not drug dependant at the time of the crime and sold narcotics purely for profit.   It also argues that the petitioner has a long felony record and has spent the better part of his adult life in prison.

After carefully reviewing the factual circumstances of the case and the petitioner's background, it is apparent to the Division that there is no good reason to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court.   The petitioner has multiple felony convictions, including other convictions for possession of narcotics with intent to sell and sale of narcotics.   The sentence that the petitioner now asks to reduce is in fact lighter than the punishment that he has previously received for similar conduct.   For example, in 1989 he received a sentence of 15 years suspended after 10 years and 3 years of probation for possessing narcotics with intent to sell.

Given his horrendous record and failure to change his criminal behavior, the sentence he received in this case appears to be more than fair and 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. The petitioner was convicted pursuant to General Statutes Sections 21a-278(b), 21a-278a(b) and 53a-48/21a-278(b).  He was originally sentenced to a total effective sentence of 8 years.   He appealed his conviction, which was reversed in part, and he was thereafter resentenced by the trial court, as indicated.   See State v. Bruno, 293 Conn. 127, reversed in part, remanded for retrial (2009)..  FN1. The petitioner was convicted pursuant to General Statutes Sections 21a-278(b), 21a-278a(b) and 53a-48/21a-278(b).  He was originally sentenced to a total effective sentence of 8 years.   He appealed his conviction, which was reversed in part, and he was thereafter resentenced by the trial court, as indicated.   See State v. Bruno, 293 Conn. 127, reversed in part, remanded for retrial (2009).

FN2. 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.”.  FN2. 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