State of Connecticut v. 361884 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Shawn Pinto, reached an agreement with the state to plead guilty to the crime of assault in the first degree and to accept a sentence of at least 5 years and no more than the 20–year maximum.   Each party retained the right to argue to the court for whatever sentence that party believed to be appropriate within the 5–20 year range mandated by statute.   After hearing argument from counsel, reviewing the pre-sentence investigation report and considering all of the other relevant information, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 7 years, followed by 5 years of special parole.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   During the evening of April 30, 2007 the Hartford Police responded to an inner city address on a report of gun fire.   They learned that two men had been shot during a gun battle at that location.   One of these men died from a gunshot wound to the chest and the other shooting victim was implicated, but ultimately exonerated, in the murder of the decedent.

The police determined that there were at least three different handguns involved and that the petitioner owned one of the weapons at the time of the crime.   In addition the police learned that the petitioner sold his handgun after the crime occurred and that nine other people possessed it before the police could recover it for testing.

The surviving victim, who was an armed participant in the altercation, gave three inconsistent statements about the shooting and refused to fully cooperate in the police investigation.   The police did learn from him, however, that the petitioner was at the crime scene and had fired a handgun at or near him.   This identification evidence, in combination with forensic evidence and other information gathered by the police, ultimately resulted in the petitioner being charged.

The first time the defendant told the authorities that he was involved in the shooting and that he claimed self-defense was in August of 2008, approximately sixteen months after the crime.

The petitioner claims that his sentence is “inappropriate” or disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ¹ and asks for a reduction to the five-year mandatory minimum sentence.   In support of his request he asserts that at the time of the crime he had a proper permit to carry the handgun;  that he had no criminal record;  that he shot the surviving victim in self-defense;  and that he had strong family support.   In addition, the petitioner argues that his admitted failure to cooperate in the criminal investigation should be excused because he was afraid of getting in trouble with the law.

The state strongly asserts that the sentence should be increased to a number close to the maximum sentence of twenty years.   It points out that the petitioner shot the surviving victim five times and thereby inflicted life threatening injuries.   It also argues that the petitioner's self-defense claim is disingenuous because he never mentioned that claim until after the police investigation led to his arrest almost a year and one-half after the crime.   Moreover, the state points out, the petitioner impeded the police investigation by selling his weapon shortly after the shooting and thereby left a deadly weapon in the community where it could be used to harm innocent people.

The state makes a strong case that the petitioner's sentence should be increased.   The petitioner did in fact use a handgun to seriously assault the surviving victim in what the trial court described as “a scene right out of the Wild Wild West.” In addition, the petitioner's failure to cooperate with the police and his sale of the weapon show that he actually did not act in self-defense.

The Division, however, is convinced that the trial judge properly considered, among other mitigating factors, the petitioner's clean criminal record, his good educational background, his positive work history, his contrition and his strong family support.   When the trial court fashioned its sentence it clearly considered the chaotic factual scenario, the surviving victim's credibility issues and the surviving victim's participation in the crime.

In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence imposed is both appropriate and proportionate pursuant to Section 43–28.

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