State of Connecticut v. 152467 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Richard Watson, voluntarily pleaded guilty in two separate cases to the crime of robbery in the first degree and agreed to a “cap” sentence of 15 years suspended after 8, followed by 5 years of probation with the right to argue for a reduced sentence.   After reviewing the pre-sentence investigation report, hearing the arguments from counsel and considering all the relevant circumstances, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 12 years suspended after 7 years, followed by 5 years of probation.   The petitioner asks the Division to reduce this sentence.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction in each file are similar and are as follows.

FBT CR10–247260

The petitioner and three of his accomplices robbed a variety store at gunpoint on East Main Street in Bridgeport.   They stole over $6,500 in cash.   None of the money was ever recovered.   The crime occurred on October 27, 2009 and was recorded by the store surveillance video camera.   When the police investigated the incident they questioned one of the other men involved and he implicated the petitioner.

FBT CR09–246222

On November 16, 2009 the petitioner and three other men committed a gunpoint robbery at a Family Dollar Store in Bridgeport.   The crime was recorded by the store security camera and the criminals stole over $1,300 in cash.   The police never recovered the money.   They did, however, obtain information from a confidential informant that ultimately led to the arrest of the petitioner.

The petitioner claims his sentence is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to the standards outlined in Practice Book Section 43–28.¹  He asks for a reduction, arguing that in one of the two armed robberies he did not personally brandish a weapon and that while incarcerated and awaiting trial, he assisted a corrections officer who suffered a seizure.

The state asks that the sentence remain intact.   It points out that the trial court was aware of the nature and extent of the defendant's role in each robbery and gave the petitioner credit for his actions on behalf of the corrections officer.   The state also argues that the crimes involved are extremely serious, that the petitioner's criminal record is bad and that he received a substantial reduction in the suspended and actual prison time under the agreed upon “cap” sentence.

The Division, having carefully considered all the relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43–28 and should remain unchanged.   The petitioner has a terrible criminal record which stretches back to the late 1980s.   It includes multiple felonies and many violent offenses.   The petitioner agreed to the cap sentence and persuaded the trial court to reduce the suspended portion of his sentence by three years and to reduce the period of actual incarceration by one year.   The petitioner received ample consideration and fair treatment by the trial court.   There is no good reason to further reduce his sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN1. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

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