State of Connecticut v. Everett Garcia (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Everett Garcia, petitioner, entered a guilty plea to Robbery 1st, in violation of Connecticut General Statute 53a-134(a)(2) with a maximum penalty of twenty years.   Pursuant to an agreement between the petitioner and the state, the trial court sentenced the petitioner within the parameters of a “cap” of 10 years and a “floor” of 5 years with a right to argue for the floor of 5 years.   After considering the factual basis of the crime, the arguments of counsel and all other relevant circumstances, the trial court imposed a sentence of 7 1/2 years to serve with 5 1/2 years special parole.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts underlying the petitioner's criminal conduct are as follows.   The victim was in a hotel room at the Holiday Inn in Meriden.   The victim allowed Elvin Garcia and the petitioner into the room.   Shortly thereafter Elvin Garcia grabbed the victim and they fell to the floor.   The petitioner then placed a sawed off shotgun to the victim's head who yelled his valuables were in his car.   A cell phone, pager and $650.00 were stolen in the robbery.

The petitioner asks the Division to reduce his sentence as he argues it is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.   He argues the co-defendant Elvin Garcia received a sentence less than the petitioner's even though the petitioner was younger and had no record.   Elvin Garcia has seven felony convictions.   The petitioner requests a sentence of 5 years.

The state argued the petitioner's sentence was appropriate.   The state argues Elvin Garcia's sentence was too low.

The Division only has authority to modify a criminal sentence that is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.   There is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   The petitioner actively participates in robbing an individual by placing a sawed off shotgun next to his head.

The sentence imposed by the trial court is clearly well within the parameters of Section 43-28.  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.”

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary White, Judge

Kari Dooley, Judge

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

Fischer, Brian T., White Gary J., Dooley, Kari A., J.s