State of Connecticut v. 127411 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Curtis Hudson.   He was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of credit card theft,¹ identity theft in the third degree ² and credit card fraud.³  He appealed his conviction and the Appellate Court reversed three of his convictions for credit card fraud, left the remaining convictions intact and remanded the case to the trial court for re-sentencing.   See State v. Hudson, 122 Conn.App. 804 (2010).   Upon remand, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 14 years to serve.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   The petitioner entered the victim's private office on January 30, 2007 without her knowledge or permission and then stole two credit cards from her purse.   Later that day he used one of the credit cards to make a purchase at a liquor store and the following day he used one of the cards to make a purchase at a restaurant.

The police investigated the crime and discovered a video surveillance tape of the petitioner using one of the credit cards at the restaurant.   He subsequently confessed his crime when he was interviewed by an investigating police officer.

The petitioner claims that his sentence is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 because he has a work history, attends church regularly and has sought treatment for his drug and alcohol addiction.   He further asserts that he is not a violent person and that his crimes are minor in nature.

The state opposes any reduction in the sentence, arguing that the petitioner has a criminal record that is replete with theft offenses and that his criminal history stretches back to the late 1970s.   In addition, the state points out that the petitioner has described himself as a “menace to society” and has stated that his personal role model is the burglar in the movie entitled “It Takes a Thief.”   The petitioner, according to the state, is not amenable to rehabilitation and deserves the sentence he received.

The Division, after careful consideration, has determined that the 14–year sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43–28.   The petitioner has a long history of criminal convictions, fails to accept responsibility for his conduct and is apparently committed to living a life of crime.   He has numerous theft convictions spread over decades and has committed his crimes in multiple states.   The sentence he received is both appropriate and proportionate under the totality of the circumstances.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–128c(a).   This crime carries a maximum period of one year in jail..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–128c(a).   This crime carries a maximum period of one year in jail.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–129d.   This crime carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–129d.   This crime carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–128c(g).  This crime carries a maximum sentence of one year in jail..  FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–128c(g).  This crime carries a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

White, Gary J., Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Js.