State of Connecticut v. 237982 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Travis Hampton.   He was convicted by a jury of numerous crimes, including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping in the first degree, assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the first degree and other felonious offenses.   The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 59 years of incarceration.

The petitioner appealed his conviction, but the trial court decision was affirmed.   See State v. Hampton, 293 Conn 435 aff'd (2009).   The factual basis for the conviction is outlined in detail in the Supreme Court decision.   For purposes of this sentence review opinion, however, it is sufficient to state the facts as follows.   On August 23, 2003, the petitioner and his accomplice, James Mitchell, offered the female victim a ride in their automobile.   After she accepted the confederates subsequently forced her out of the car, sexually assaulted her and shot her repeatedly with a shotgun.   As a result of the shooting, the victim lost one of her eyes and suffered serious injuries to her stomach, her left arm, her legs and her face.

The petitioner asks for a reduction in his sentence primarily because his co-defendant, James Mitchell, received “only” 57 years in prison while he received a sentence that is two years longer.   He also argues that the victim survived the attack and that he should not have been sentenced as if he had committed a homicide.

The state opposes any reduction in the sentence.   It points out that the petitioner initially denied participating in the attack and that he has refused to accept responsibility for his actions.   It also argues that the petitioner has been convicted of other serious assaults and that the sentence is both “appropriate” and “proportionate” within the parameters of Practice Book Section 43–28.¹

The Division, after considering the parties' arguments and all the relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed is well within the guidelines established in Section 43–28.   The petitioner committed a horrendous crime that left the victim physically and emotionally devastated.   He has a history of serious assaults and has failed to accept responsibility for his part in the crime.   In addition, the trial judge who sentenced the petitioner also presided over the co-defendant's trial and sentenced him too.   Hence, the trial court was well aware of the facts and the backgrounds of each criminal when it decided on the appropriate sentence for the petitioner.   The Division cannot say, based on the information before us, that the petitioner received a sentence that was “inappropriate,” “disproportionate” or in any way unfair pursuant to Section 43–28.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J., Alexander, J. and (B) 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