State of Connecticut v. Taylor Dunbar (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Taylor Dunbar.   He entered guilty pleas to the following charges on the following docket numbers:

1.) CR08–126124. Assault in the First Degree 53a–59(a)(4) with a maximum penalty of twenty years.   His sentence was twenty years suspended after ten.

Conspiracy to Commit Assault in the First Degree 53a–48/53a–59(a)(3) with a maximum penalty of twenty years.   His sentence was twenty years suspended after ten to run concurrent.

2.) CR08–126125. Assault in the Third Degree with a maximum penalty of one year.   His sentence was one year concurrent with the next count.

Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the Second Degree 53a–48/53a–135(a)(1) with a maximum sentence of ten years.   His sentence was ten years suspended after five years.   This sentence to run consecutive with docket number CR08–126124.

Therefore the total effective sentence on both files was thirty years suspended after fifteen years with five years probation.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows on both docket numbers.   A victim was assaulted while walking home from work on 1/8/08.   He was kicked, punched and shown a handgun but was able to run away.   The assault was by four white males.   Shortly after another victim was assaulted by five white males while walking.   The victim was punched and kicked.   The petitioner was actively involved in both assaults.

Pursuant to an agreement between the petitioner and the state, the trial court would sentence the petitioner on both docket numbers to thirty years suspended after fifteen with a right to argue for less.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   He had a very troubled youth and indicated to the panel he is remorseful.

The state argues these were vicious, random assaults.   One victim has permanent hearing loss in one ear.   The other victim suffered a facial fracture.   The petitioner has a substantial prior record and the state requests the sentence be affirmed.

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.   The petitioner was involved with two separate, violent assaults.   A handgun was brandished at one.   The victims have permanent disabilities because of the assaults.   The court sentenced the petitioner within the parameters the parties agreed to.

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 et seq.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary White, Judge

Kari Dooley, Judge

Fischer, J., White, J., & Dooley, J. participated in this decision.

Fischer, Brian T., White, Gary J., Dooley, Kari A., Js.