State of Connecticut v. Nemiah Allan (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Nemiah Allan, petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Conspiracy to Sell Narcotics in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 21a-278(b) with a penalty of not less than five years up to twenty years;  and, one count of Interfering with a Police Officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a with a penalty of up to one year.   The petitioner was found not guilty on three additional counts.   The factual basis for this conviction involves the petitioner selling crack cocaine.   DEA observed several transactions with this accused consistent with the sale of narcotics.   The court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of twelve years to serve followed by five years of special parole.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was inappropriate because the petitioner maintained his innocence and claimed the petitioner was being treated harshly because of a separate incident in which a police officer was injured.   Counsel argued that the petitioner had been acquitted of several additional felonies and that his sentence should be reduced.   Petitioner addressed the Division and again reiterated that he felt he was being punished for an incident against a police officer that he had not committed.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the petitioner was a lifelong criminal with three prior sale convictions as well as numerous violations of probation.   The sentencing court took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the offenses that the petitioner had been convicted of:  it is clear from the record that the sentencing court did not punish the petitioner for any unrelated offense.   The sentencing court found that the petitioner had “proven time and time again that after incarceration [the petitioner] comes out and [c]ontinues to commit serious crimes.  (Transcript at page 18.)

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 well as the petitioner's background and extensive 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., Dooley, J., White, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., White, Gary J., Dooley, Kari A., J.s