State of Connecticut v. 301225 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is David McBride.   He was convicted after a court trial on two separate violation of probation files.   The court sentenced the petitioner to four years to serve on each file to run concurrent.   Total effective sentence was four years to serve.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   The petitioner was sentenced on April 23, 2003 to 10 years execution suspended after 5 years with 5 years probation for a Robbery 1st.   On August 24, 2009 the petitioner plead to a Violation of Probation and his sentence was modified to 5 years execution suspended and 58 months probation.   On July 12, 2010 the petitioner was charged with a second violation of probation which is the basis of this review.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner argues he was 18 years old when he was incarcerated and will be 23 years old upon release.   He has had a serious drug problem and argues the beneficial aspects of probation can still be realized.   He requests a sentence of two years to be followed by special parole.

The state argues this was his second violation and more than a technical violation.   There were new arrests and a failure to dedicate himself to a drug treatment program.

Pursuant to Connecticut 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.”   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and Connecticut General Statute § 51–194 et seq.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   As the sentencing court noted the petitioner has twice been given the benefit of probation.   He continues to violate the terms of his probation.

In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43–23.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary J. White, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

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

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