State of Connecticut v. 317280 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Sidney Wade. He was convicted by a jury of four counts of drug sales and possessions and one count Manslaughter 1st.   The petitioner was sentenced to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years.   The defendant appealed his conviction and the Appellate Court vacated the Manslaughter 1st and entered a guilty conviction on the lesser included offense of Manslaughter 2nd.

At the re-sentencing the trial court imposed a sentence of thirteen years concurrent on the four drug counts and ten years consecutive on the Manslaughter 2nd.   Total effective sentence was twenty-three years of incarceration.   The total statutory exposure to the petitioner was twenty years on each drug count and twenty years on the Manslaughter 2nd.   In re-sentencing the petitioner the trial court noted the petitioner brought powerful drugs to a party, as he was aware it was a medical lollipop.   The victim, a 20-year-old victim, ingested the narcotics the petitioner provided and subsequently died.   The court noted the petitioner must be punished for the conduct he was found guilty of to deter others from engaging in this conduct.

The facts are as follows.   The twenty-year-old victim attended a party on April 14, 2003 in Southington.   The petitioner attended the party and distributed Fentanyl and Methadone to individuals at the party.   He distributed said drugs to the victim who subsequently died from ingesting them.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43-28.   He claims the sentence was too punitive.   He requests his sentence be drastically reduced as a result of the Manslaughter 1st being vacated by the Appellate Court.

The state argues the petitioner caused the death of the twenty-year-old victim.   The state argues the court's sentence was appropriate.

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.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   The petitioner brings powerful drugs to a party, which he is well aware of, and then distributes them to individuals including the victim who digests one and soon thereafter dies.   The petitioner has a long history of drug abuse and admits to selling cocaine.

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.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary J. White, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

Fischer, Brian T.,, White, Gary J., Alexander, Joan K., J.'s