State of Connecticut v. 299716 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Alexis Melendez, petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Larceny in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–122, with a penalty of one year to twenty years;  one count of Conspiracy to Commit Larceny in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 and 53a–122, with a penalty of one year to twenty years;  and, one count of Burglary in the Third Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–103, with a penalty of one to five years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of seventeen years to serve followed by three years of special parole.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted involved the burglary at an establishment known as “The British American Club.” According to the evidence, the club had $14,000 in cash as well as liquor stolen.   At the time of the incident, the petitioner was on parole for burglary and larceny.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that because the petitioner exercised his right to a trial, he paid the price in his sentencing.   Counsel then indicated that the codefendants, who did not go to trial, received much lesser sentences than the petitioner.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the petitioner's criminal history as well as the fact that he was on parole at the time of the instant offense.   The State argued that the petitioner was not similarly situated to the co-defendants in that he had three prior convictions for burglaries.

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.

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 background and his numerous convictions for similar offenses, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J.

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

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