State of Connecticut v. 211671 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Devon Smith, 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 imposed sixty years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident arises out of the shooting of a rival gang member by the petitioner.   When the victim was first shot, he attempted to get up.   However, the petitioner continued to shoot the victim until he was no longer moving.   See also State v. Smith, 46 Conn.App. 285 (1997).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was “disproportionate” given the nature of the crime and the fact that the victim's mother had asked the court to impose a significantly lower sentence.   Petitioner's counsel indicated that the Division could lessen the “waste” by allowing the petitioner to become an “invaluable” presence in the community by sharing his life story.   The petitioner himself addressed the Division and said that he knew about inner city kids and that at the age of forty, he could tell them things that he did not know when he was young.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the gang violence and the lack of responsibility the petitioner displayed in his actions at the time of the incident.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background and his criminal history.   The court found that the sentence imposed should be “swift and severe because we can't let gangs take over our public areas to prevent our citizens from having freedom and being in peace in the community.”  (Transcript at pages 12–13.)   The court believed a substantial sentence was warranted because of the nature of the offense.

Pursuant to 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 Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background when balanced against the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed was appropriate and not disproportionate.

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., J.s