State of Connecticut v. Taevon Alston (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Taevon Alston, pled guilty to the charge of robbery in the first degree and agreed with the state to a sentence of 10 years suspended after not more than 5 years and not less than 3 years of incarceration, followed by 5 years of probation.   Each party, pursuant to this “cap” sentence, retained the right to argue to the court for the sentence that it believed to be appropriate.   After reviewing the pertinent information and considering the parties' arguments, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 10 years suspended after 5 years followed by 5 years of probation.

The facts underlying the petitioner's convictions are as follows.   On November 16, 2008 the petitioner, while wearing a ski mask and armed with a shotgun, stole cash and other personal property from a pizza delivery man and his girlfriend.   The petitioner committed the crime with the help of two accomplices and was identified by an independent witness.   That independent witness knew that the perpetrators were planning the robbery, saw the petitioner don the ski mask and watched the robbery as it occurred.

The petitioner asks the Division to reduce his period of incarceration from 5 years to 3 years and claims that his current sentence is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.   In support of this claim he argues that he was very young at the time of the crime, that he regrets his conduct and that he is now willing to live a law abiding life.

The state objects to any reduction.   It reminds the Division that the petitioner committed a violent crime and that the petitioner received a sentence within the parameters that he agreed to accept when he entered his guilty plea.   In addition, the state argues that the petitioner was on probation for a felony drug offense at the time he committed the crime and that while incarcerated and awaiting trial for the robbery charge, the petitioner amassed ten tickets for various types of misconduct.

The Division, having reviewed the facts and considered all the relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is both appropriate and proportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.¹  The petitioner's conduct was dangerous and irresponsible and when he committed his crime he was on probation for a separate offence.   In addition, he received a sentence that was within the range that he voluntarily agreed to accept.   There is no persuasive reason to alter the sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. 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.”.  FN1. 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.”

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