State of Connecticut v. Patrick Nemhard (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Patrick Nemhard, was convicted by a jury of rioting in a correctional institution and received a total effective sentence of 20 years suspended after 15 years, followed by 5 years of probation.   The trial court ordered that the sentence for rioting was to run consecutively to the 30-year sentence he was then serving for felony murder.¹

At the time the petitioner was involved in the prison riot he was incarcerated and awaiting trial on the felony murder charge.   Between the date when the petitioner committed the felony murder in January of 1992 and the date he was sentenced for the riot in June of 1994, the petitioner attacked a correctional officer at Bridgeport Correctional Center.   The petitioner, along with other inmates, had planned to murder the victim.

The petitioner asks for a reduction of 5 years in his sentence.   He asserts that his sentence for rioting is both “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.²

The state adamantly claims that the sentence is both appropriate and proportionate in light of the petitioner's history of convictions for assault, threatening and felony murder.

The Division, after reviewing the underlying facts of the petitioner's crime as well as his criminal background, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43-28.   There is no good 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. The petitioner's right to sentence review was restored on June 16, 2010..  FN1. The petitioner's right to sentence review was restored on June 16, 2010.

FN2. 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.”.  FN2. 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.