State of Connecticut v. 296763 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Rashel Willams, petitioner, entered pleas of guilty to one count of Larceny in the Fifth Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–125a, with a penalty of one to five years as a persistent offender, and one count of Forgery in the Second Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–139, with a penalty of one to five years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of eight and one-half years to serve.   It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

At the time of her pleas, the petitioner was on probation for another larceny conviction for which she owed three and one-half years.   She was given the opportunity to make restitution on the instant case and earn a suspended sentence.   She appeared before the Court and indicated that she needed until the afternoon to bring in money for the restitution.   The petitioner was advised of the Garvin ¹ rule, wherein her failure to return for sentencing meant an exposure to thirteen and one-half years to serve.   The petitioner failed to return to court for sentencing and a re-arrest was ordered.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner indicated that the sentence was “inequitable” given the nature of the underlying charges.   The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that she understood there were consequences for her actions, but that she was “begging for help” and requested a lesser sentence.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the petitioner's extensive criminal history of larcenies.   The State argued that this sentence was the only way to get the petitioner to stop stealing.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, her criminal history, and the nature of the offense as well as her subsequent failure to appear at sentencing.   The court indicated that the petitioner had “lied” to the court, and that there was nothing that the petitioner could say to “ever make [the court] believe that you had any intention of ever paying these people or ever coming back.”  (Transcript at page 20.)   The court found that the sentence would protect society in that other persons would not be victimized by the petitioner's actions.

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.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the nature of the instant offense, 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.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296 (1997)..  FN1. State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296 (1997).

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