State of Connecticut v. Richard Rich (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On September 3, 2009 the petitioner, Richard Rich, voluntarily admitted a violation of probation charge.   He “owed” a total of six and one-half years, having committed the crime of larceny in the second degree and assault in the third degree.   The petitioner and the state agreed to a “cap” sentence.   Pursuant to the cap agreement, the petitioner would be placed back on probation if he successfully completed in-patient drug treatment.   In the event that he failed, however, the parties agreed that the petitioner would then receive a jail sentence of not less than 3 years and could receive the entire amount of time that he owed.

After the petitioner pled and prior to the date of sentencing on February 2, 2010, the petitioner failed to cooperate with drug treatment, was arrested on a new larceny charge and failed to appear in court.   Ultimately the trial court sentenced the petitioner to the 6 1/2 years that he faced under the cap.

The petitioner asks for a reduction in his sentence, claiming that it is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” under the standards outlined in Practice Book Section 43-28.¹  He argues that he has struggled with drug addiction for most of his adult life and that his failure to cooperate with drug treatment was due to a relapse.   He further asserts that the larceny he committed during the pendency of his violation of probation case and his failure to appear are minor offenses and that he deserves another chance to prove himself.

The state opposes any change in the sentence.   It points out that the petitioner knowingly agreed to the cap, that he refused to attend drug treatment and that he committed new crimes while awaiting sentencing.   According to the state, it would not have asked for the full cap if the petitioner had simply missed a few treatment meetings.   It argues, however, that the full cap is justified under the totality of the circumstances because the petitioner's conduct demonstrates that he is not interested in getting drug help and continues to violate the law.

The Division, having considered all the relevant information and the parties' arguments, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43-28.   The petitioner was fully aware of what he needed to do in order to avoid jail pursuant to the cap agreement.   He failed to cooperate with drug treatment and committed new crimes while awaiting sentencing.   There is no persuasive reason to change 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.