State of Connecticut v. 308142 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Petitioner Vincent Palangio was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and accessory to robbery in the first degree.   The charges arise out of his role as the getaway driver/wheelman for his ex-wife and co-defendant who robbed a Citgo station with a BB gun shaped like a handgun.   He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 20 years, execution suspended after 10 years, to be followed by 5 years of probation.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner's sentence should be reduced because his co-defendant received a lesser sentence (15 years execution suspended after 8 years) even though she was the person who actually committed the robbery.   The petitioner further argued that the sentence was disproportionately high given his relatively minor criminal history.   The State seeks to have the sentence remain undisturbed.   The State pointed out that the co-defendant pled guilty and accepted responsibility for the crime, something the petitioner refused to do at the time of sentencing.

The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court properly considered the evidence at trial, the content of the PSI, the aggravating as well as mitigating factors at issue with this petitioner before imposing sentence.   The court cited the petitioner's difficult and abusive upbringing and his efforts while incarcerated to avail himself of DOC programs.   He also noted the petitioner's failure to take responsibility for this offense, his sporadic work history and the seriousness of the crime committed.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 43–23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in scope of its review.   The Division is to determine whether the sentence imposed “should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense;  the character of the offender;  the protection of the public interest and the deterrent, rehabilitative isolative and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statute § 51–194 et seq.

Taking into consideration each of these factors, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.   In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Kari A. Dooley, J.

Gary J. White, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

Dooley, J., White, J., and Fischer, J. Participated in this decision.

Dooley, Kari A., White, Gary J., Fischer, Brian T., J.s