State of Connecticut v. 225034 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Dwayne Andrews, petitioner, was found guilty after a trial to a jury of one count of Murder, as an accessory, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a(a) with a penalty of not less than twenty-five years to sixty years.   The court imposed a sentence of forty years to serve.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis involves the petitioner and another male confronting the victim about a $1,000 debt.   All of the individuals involved in the incident were associates in the illegal drug trade.   The male accompanying the petitioner fatally shot the victim in the back while the petitioner held a gun to the head of another person who was present.   See also State v. Andrews, 248 Conn. 1 (1999).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was “excessive” because of his limited criminal history.   The petitioner was a friend of the victim's and was not aware of the incident until the next day.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the incident was the result of “drugs, violence, and greed.”   The sentencing court found that there was “no excuse” for the petitioner's conduct and that the conduct was “so serious that it requires that you [the petitioner] be incarcerated for an extended period of time in excess of the minimum.”  (Transcript at page 8.)

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 balanced against the petitioner's limited 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, 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