State of Connecticut v. 319086 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Miguel Zapata, petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–54a and 53a–48 with a penalty of one to twenty years, with an enhancement, pursuant to General Statutes § 53–202k, of five years;  one count of Murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a with a penalty of twenty-five to sixty years, with an enhancement, pursuant to General Statutes § 53–202k, of five years;  and, one count of Pistol without a Permit in violation of General Statutes § 29–35(a) with a penalty of one to five years.   The court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of sixty years to serve.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis for this conviction involved the petitioner, who was a drug dealer, shooting the victim who was there to purchase drugs.   The police found the victim's body in his car riddled with bullets and recovered eighteen shelling casings in the area.   See also State v. Zapata, 110 Conn.App. 660 (2010).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was disproportionate because the petitioner was only seventeen years old at the time of the shooting and that his co-defendant had received fifty-three years for the incident.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the incident was a cold blooded execution and the petitioner showed a complete lack of respect during the court proceedings.   The victim's mother sent an impact statement which was also reviewed by the Division.

The sentencing court took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the offense.   The sentencing court found that this incident was an “execution” and the court “was not able to find anything in the way of mitigation with Mr. Zapata.”  (Transcript at page 26.)

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 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 Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 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 Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 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., J.s