State of Connecticut v. 355502 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Robert Furbush, petitioner, was convicted after a court trial of one count of Manslaughter in the Second Degree with a Motor Vehicle in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-56b which provides for a maximum penalty of up to ten years incarceration;  and, Operating Under the Influence in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 14-227a which provides for a maximum penalty of up to six months incarceration.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years execution suspended after nine years with four years of probation.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The following facts were established at trial:  On September 2, 2003, the petitioner was operating his motor vehicle with a BAC of .240 when it crossed the center line, struck the victim's vehicle head on and continued to travel over the top of the vehicle causing the victim's death.

At the hearing before the Division counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was “excessive” and did not “promote uniformity of sentencing.”   The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that the incident was a “rude awakening” for him and that the victim's family was in his prayers every day.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the arrogance that the petitioner had displayed during the incident and the court proceedings.   The impact of the defendant's actions was clearly significant.   The victim's wife suffers from a disabling disease and he was described by the family as “the glue” that kept them together.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background.   The court found that the petitioner “drove in a manner that reflected your selfishness, a belief that you own the road, a belief that you are above the law and you could get away with drinking and driving and beat any rap.”   (Transcript at page 60.)

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 egregious nature of the crime, 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 Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.   The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J.

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

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