State of Connecticut v. 239318 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

SENTENCE AFFIRMED

BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner is Marlik Mourning.   He was convicted by a jury of Manslaughter in the 1st Degree with a Firearm in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a–55a(a) with a penalty of up to 45 years, Conspiracy to Commit Murder in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a–48/53a–54a with a penalty up to life and Criminal Possession of a Pistol/Revolver in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a–217c(l) with a penalty up to 5 years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of forty years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The facts are as follows.   There was an argument between the victim, and the petitioner and two other defendants on July 8, 2003 in Waterbury.   One defendant went to a home to retrieve a gun after the argument.   The defendants returned to the scene of the argument.   The petitioner was handed a gun and he shot and killed the victim who was running away from him.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   He argues he was a reluctant participant who was given the gun just before the shooting.   He has no history of violence.   He argues his co-defendants received lesser sentences.   He requests a sentence of twenty three years.

The state argues that the petitioner was a convicted felon.   This was not a “heat of the moment crime.”   The petitioner had time to calm down from the argument but instead shot the victim in the head as he was running away.   The state had requested a sixty year sentence at the sentencing hearing.

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.”   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.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the fact he fired a bullet into the head of a fleeing victim the sentence is appropriate.

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 al.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Gary White, Joan K. Alexander, Judges

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