State of Connecticut v. 273902 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Jamaal Coltherst, was convicted by juries in both the Judicial District of Hartford and in the Judicial District of New Britain.

In the Hartford matter, the petitioner was convicted of capital felony murder, kidnapping in the first degree, robbery in the first and second degree and with other felonies as well.   The trial judge imposed a total effective sentence of life without the possibility of release, followed by 71 years in prison to be served consecutively.

In the New Britain file, the petitioner was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree, two counts of burglary in the first degree, attempted murder, multiple counts of robbery in the first degree and various other felony offenses.   He received a total effective sentence of 85 years in prison consecutive to the sentence he received in the Hartford matter.

Consequently, the total effective sentence the petitioner received in both the Hartford and New Britain matters was life without the possibility of release, followed by 156 years in prison to be served consecutively to the life sentence.

The petitioner asks this panel to review his 156–year consecutive sentence even though, pursuant to his life sentence, he will never be released from prison regardless of what the Division decides in connection with his application.

File Numbers CR99–170354 and CR99–170276

The petitioner appealed his conviction in the Hartford matter, but the trial court's decision was affirmed.   See State v. Coltherst, 263 Conn 478 aff'd (2003).   The factual basis for the Hartford conviction is outlined in detail in the Supreme Court decision.   For purposes of this sentence review opinion, however, it is sufficient to indicate that on October 15, 1999, the day the petitioner was released from prison after committing other crimes, he and an accomplice named Carl Johnson robbed the victim of his wallet, shot him dead and stole his car.

File Number CR99–185738

The petitioner appealed his conviction in the New Britain matter and the trial court's decision was reversed in part and affirmed in part.   See State v. Coltherst, 87 Conn App 93 (2005).   The facts underlying the conviction are contained in the Appellate Court decision.   It is sufficient to indicate for the purposes of this sentence review opinion, however, that the facts are as follows.   On October 19, 1999, a few days after robbing and murdering the victim in the Hartford matter, the petitioner, along with Carl Johnson and Rashad Smith, shot the victim in the head and stole his automobile.   The victim survived the shooting but was left with permanent and serious physical injuries.

The petitioner asks the Division to reduce his 156–year consecutive sentence, arguing that he was a young man when he committed his crimes.   He also argues that he is salvageable and wants to contribute something positive to society.

The state opposes any reduction in sentence.   It points out that the petitioner is extremely dangerous, never accepted responsibility for his crimes and that the crimes are so brutal that the sentences imposed are warranted.

The Division can only adjust criminal sentences that are “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28.¹  The consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court in the Hartford and New Britain matters are well within the parameters of Section 43–28.   The petitioner's crimes were extremely vicious and inexcusable.   Moreover, he has failed to accept responsibility or show remorse for his horrible criminal conduct.   There simply is no persuasive reason to lower the petitioner's 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