State of Connecticut v. James Thomas (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

SENTENCE AFFIRMED

BY THE DIVISION

James Thomas, petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a with a penalty of twenty-five to sixty years.   The court sentenced the petitioner to sixty years to serve.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis for this conviction involves the petitioner stabbing the victim multiple times.   The petitioner maintained his innocence throughout the trial.   See also State v. Thomas, 98 Conn.App. 384 (2006).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was disproportionate and that the petitioner was “punished” for having taken his case to trial.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the incident was a brutal attack and the petitioner had a lengthy criminal history.   The sentencing court took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the offense.   The sentencing court found that this incident was “malicious and senseless and demonstrate[d] a complete disregard for the sanctity of life.”  (Transcript at page 23.)   The court indicated that it was clear that the petitioner was “a danger to the community.”  (Transcript at pages 24–25.)

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 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.”   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 Statute § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as well as the petitioner's background, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and Connecticut General Statute § 51–194 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

Dooley, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Dooley, Kari A., Js.