State of Connecticut v. 343082 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Tony Schick, pled guilty to the charges of burglary in the third degree and larceny in the first degree in exchange for a sentence of 20 years suspended after 9 years, with a minimum sentence of 5 years of incarceration, followed by 5 years of probation.   That sentence included a right to argue for less within the 5–9 year range of actual incarceration.

The trial court, after listening to the parties' arguments and reviewing all the relevant information, sentenced the petitioner on September 3, 2010 to a total effective sentence of 20 years suspended after 8 years, followed by 5 years of probation.

On September 3, 2010, the same day that the petitioner was sentenced on the burglary and larceny charges in Docket Number DBD CR010–137943, the trial court also sentenced the petitioner on multiple robbery and larceny counts that are not a part of this sentence review application.¹  At the sentence review application hearing, the parties represented that the petitioner received a consecutive sentence of 10 years suspended after 1 day, followed by 5 years probation on the robbery and larceny charges that are not the subject of this sentence review application.   The trial court ordered that the aforementioned sentence run consecutively to Docket Number DBD CR010–137943.

The facts underlying the sentence in Docket Number DBD CR010–137943 are as follows.   On October 22, 2009, the petitioner gained daytime entered an unoccupied Sandy Hook residence and stole over $14,000 worth of jewelry.   When the petitioner was leaving the crime scene, the female homeowner was returning to her residence and saw the petitioner leaving the home.   She briefly spoke to him and based on their conversation, she thought that he had been at the house in search of work.   She subsequently learned, however, that the petitioner had victimized her and reported the burglary to the police.   The police linked the petitioner to the crime through latent finger prints left at the crime scene and through incriminating statements that he made to his own relatives.

The petitioner argues that his sentence is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28,² even though the sentence received is within the sentencing range that he agreed to in exchange for his guilty plea.   He argues that a sentence of 20 years suspended after 5 year, followed by 5 years is the appropriate and proportionate sentence for his crime because he is a heroin addict in need of help rather than incarceration, he did not injure anyone during the commission of his crime and he is remorseful.

The state strongly opposes any reduction of the sentence.   It points out that the petitioner has refused to participate in drug treatment that has been offered to him while on his many failed probations;  that he has a horrendous criminal record which includes crimes of violence;  and that the petitioner was sentenced on six additional serious felonies on the day he was sentenced for burglarizing the Sandy Hook residence.

The Division, having carefully considered the arguments of counsel and all the pertinent information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43–28.   The petitioner has a prior burglary conviction, has refused to accept help for his drug addiction and has a history of committing violent crimes.   In addition, the petitioner received a sentence within a range that he agreed to and apparently believed was appropriate and proportionate at the time he entered his guilty plea.   The sentence imposed by the trial court is fair and satisfies the criteria spelled out in Section 43–28.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Those docket numbers include:  CR10113741 (robbery in the second degree and larceny in the second degree);  CR10137942 (robbery in the second degree and larceny in the second degree);  and CR137944 (attempted robbery in the second degree and attempted larceny in the second degree)..  FN1. Those docket numbers include:  CR10113741 (robbery in the second degree and larceny in the second degree);  CR10137942 (robbery in the second degree and larceny in the second degree);  and CR137944 (attempted robbery in the second degree and attempted larceny in the second degree).

FN2. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN2. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

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