State of Connecticut v. John Russell (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Application for REVIEW OF SENTENCE imposed by the Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at G.A. 4, Docket No. U04W CR08-369372.

Karen Diebolt Counsel for the State Assistant State's Attorney.

Matthew Berger Counsel for the Petitioner.

SENTENCE AFFIRMED

BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner is John Russell.   He was convicted after a court trial of Violation of Probation.   He owed 4 1/2 years on his sentence.   The trial court sentenced the petitioner to 3 1/2 years of incarceration.

The factual basis of the petitioner's conviction is as follows.   The petitioner was on probation for a Violation of a Protective Order and Assault III. During the course of his probation he was arrested 4 separate times.   He was found to have violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to 3 1/2 years to serve.

At the hearing counsel for the petitioner argued the sentence imposed was inappropriate.   Counsel argued a two-year sentence would be appropriate.   The petitioner addressed the division and stated the 3 1/2 year sentence was “outrageous.”

Counsel for the State argued the petitioner has 60 convictions, absconded from parole in 2007 and has 8 protective orders registered against him with 8 women.   Counsel argued 3 1/2 years 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 has 60 convictions.   He owed 4 1/2 years on his sentence.   He was arrested on 4 separate occasions while on probation.

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 White, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

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

Fischer, Brian T., White, Gary J., Alexander, Joan K., Js.