State of Connecticut v. Hudel Gamble (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Hudel Gamble, petitioner, was found guilty after a trial to a jury of one-count of Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm as an Accessory in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a–55a and 53a–8, with a penalty of not less than five to forty years.   The court imposed a sentence of thirty-seven and one-half years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted was a drive-by shooting in which the police recovered multiple bullets fired from three different types of weapons.   The petitioner was in the car with his two co-defendants.   Essentially, each co-defendant blamed the other for the fatal shooting.   The jury returned several verdicts of not guilty against the petitioner including for the crimes of Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Murder.   See also State v. Gamble, 110 Conn.App. 287 (2010).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner indicated that the sentence was “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” and that the court's sentence contradicted the jury's verdict.   Counsel argued that petitioner has always maintained his innocence as it related to the actual firing of any weapon at the victim.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the petitioner's extensive juvenile history as well as the fact that at the time of sentencing, the petitioner had five cases pending, three of which involved weapons.   The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, his criminal history, and the nature of offense.   The court indicated that the petitioner continued to “make decisions in terms of violence, always around guns and violence.”  (Transcript at pages 53–54.)

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.”  Practice Book § 43–28.   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 Statutes § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the serious nature of the instant offense, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J., White, J., Dooley, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., White, Gary J., Dooley, Kari A., J.s