State of Connecticut v. Lenoris Starks (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Lenoris Starks, petitioner, was found guilty after a trial to a jury of one count of Possession of Narcotics with Intent to Sell by a Non–Drug Dependent Person, in violation of General Statutes § 21a–278(b) with a penalty of not less than five years to twenty years;  one count of Possession of Narcotics with Intent to Sell by a Non–Drug Dependent Person within 1500 feet of a Prohibited Place, in violation of General Statutes § 21a–278a(b) with a penalty of not less than three years that must be in addition to the sentence imposed on the § 21a–278 violation;  one count of Possession of Controlled Substances, in violation of General Statutes § 21a–279(c) with a penalty of one year;  and, one count of Possession of Controlled Substances with Intent to Sell, in violation of General Statutes § 21a–279(c) with a penalty of one to seven years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of eighteen years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the Division should reduce the petitioner's incarceration time to a total effective sentence of ten years to serve.   Counsel argued that the original sentence differed significantly from the federal sentencing guidelines for similar offenses.   The petitioner addressed the Division and stated that he accepted responsibility for the offense and that he is stronger person now and has stayed clean.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and indicated that the sentence was not excessive and that the petitioner had an extensive record for similar offenses and was on probation at the time of the instant offense and owed four years on that charge.   The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background and his criminal history.   The court found that the petitioner did not want to “take responsibility for [his] life.”  (Transcript page 30.)   The court found the petitioner's conduct to be “unacceptable.”  (Transcript page 31.)

Pursuant to Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. the Sentence Review Division is limited in the 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.”  Practice Book § 43–28.   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's criminal history when balanced against the nature of these offenses, the sentence imposed was appropriate and not 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.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

Dooley, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Dooley, Kari A., J.s