State of Connecticut v. 356850 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONSENTENCE AFFIRMED

BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner is Richard Taylor.   He was convicted by a jury of the following crimes:

1. Cheating as Principal/Accessory Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–127(a)(3) penalty up to 6 months.

2. Conspiracy to Commit Cheating Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–48a/53a–127d(a)(3) penalty up to 6 months.

3. Larceny 1st as Principal/Accessory Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–122(a)(2) penalty up to 20 years.

4. Conspiracy to Commit Larceny 1st Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–48a/53a–122(a)(2) penalty up to 20 years.

The court merged counts one and two, and count three with six, and sentenced him to concurrent time and sentenced the petitioner on merged counts four and five to a total effective sentence of thirteen years suspended after the service of ten years, three years probation.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   The petitioner was the leader of a group that received approximately $70,000 from a cheating scheme at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun Casinos.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   He claims the sentence was too punitive.   He argues his co-defendants either received no time or much shorter sentences than he received.   He argues there was no violence involved.   He has a minimal record and the victim is a casino.

The state argues the petitioner has been barred from most casinos because of his cheating schemes.   The sentence should be affirmed as it reflects the serious nature of the crimes.

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.   The petitioner maintains he has done nothing wrong and the victims' losses were everyone else's fault.

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.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

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

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