State of Connecticut v. 88634 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, John Ingram, was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery in the first degree ¹ and sentenced by the trial court to a total effective sentence of 20 years in prison.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   On August 3, 2007 the petitioner, who was 47 years old at the time and employed as a line cook at a restaurant, entered a Hartford area gas station convenience store while he was wearing a nylon stocking over his head and was armed with a large knife.   The petitioner then forced the 65–year–old victim, who worked as a store attendant, into the trunk of the petitioner's car.   The petitioner next drove the victim to the rear of the store where the petitioner, after releasing the victim from the trunk, held the knife to the victim's throat and stole his personal property, including cash and credit cards.

The victim injured his hand after pushing the knife away from his throat.   He then managed to escape from the petitioner and called the police.   Subsequently, the petitioner was captured in the nearby woods.   The police found the weapon and determined that it was used by the petitioner during the course of his employment at the restaurant.

The petitioner asks the Division to reduce his sentence to 10 years, claiming that the 20–year sentence he received by the trial court is “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28.²  He argues, first and foremost, that he did not commit the crime and was therefore wrongly convicted.   He further claims that even if he did commit the crime, the sentence he received is excessive in light of the amount of prison time he received in connection with each of his five other robbery convictions.

The state asks that the sentence remain intact.   It argues that the petitioner has been convicted of multiple robberies and that he has a history of using knives to commit robberies.   It also points out that the petitioner's crime was planned and committed at a time when he was working.   These factors, the state claims, demonstrate that the petitioner is dangerous and will continue to commit violent crimes even when he has a way to make money legally.

The Division, after carefully considering all the arguments and relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed is well within the parameters set out in Section 43–28.   The petitioner is a violent man with a long criminal history, including multiple convictions for robbery, felonious assaults and other serious offenses.   He denies responsibility for his crime and shows no remorse.   He is a dangerous criminal who received an appropriate and proportionate sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–134(a)(3).   This crime carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–134(a)(3).   This crime carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

FN2. 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.”.  FN2. 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