State of Connecticut v. Leon Ferguson (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Leon Ferguson.   He pled guilty to two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and conspiracy to commit that crime.   He and the state agreed to a “cap” sentence of 13 years suspended after 9 years, including 5 years mandatory minimum time, and 5 years of probation.   Pursuant to that agreement the petitioner had the right to argue for a reduced sentence as low as the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years.   The trial court, after reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances, imposed a total effective sentence of 6 years, including 5 years mandatory minimum.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   On April 19, 2009 the Bridgeport police had credible information that on that day a black male would be driving a green car and would arrive at a local address for the purpose of retrieving 16.5 pounds of marijuana that was present there.   As the police watched the address the petitioner, who is a black male, approached in a green car.   The police then approached him in a police vehicle and tried to stop him.   The petitioner then exited his car and fled on foot.   After the police captured him they obtained a search warrant for his car and found 14.5 pounds of marijuana in the trunk.

The petitioner asks that his sentence be reduced to the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in lieu of the 6 years, including 5 years minimum, imposed by the trial court.   He asserts that the downward modification he seeks is justified because he accepts full responsibility for his crime.

The state strongly argues against any modification in the sentence.   It points out that the petitioner has been involved in the distribution of a large quantity of drugs and has a drug charge pending in another state.   It also argues that the petitioner asked the trial court for a total effective sentence of 10 years suspended after 5 years and 5-year probation.   Therefore, according to the state, the sentence the petitioner received from the trial court is far less than what he originally asked for pursuant to the sentencing range agreed to by the parties.

The Division only has authority to modify a criminal sentence that is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” within the meaning of Practice Book Section 43-28.   The sentence imposed by the trial court in this case is clearly within the parameters of that provision.   The petitioner was trafficking in a large amount of drugs, is wanted in another state for a similar crime and received a far lighter sentence than the one he asked for from the trial court.   There is no persuasive reason to modify the sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

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

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