State of Connecticut v. 244234 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Edwin Bermudez, petitioner, entered pleas of guilty to three counts of Robbery in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53 a–134(a)(4), each carrying a penalty of one to twenty years.   The State argued for a sentence of twenty years execution suspended after fourteen years to serve followed by three years probation.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years execution suspended after eleven years to serve followed by three years probation.   It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incidents for which the petitioner was convicted arose out of a series of bank robberies.   The petitioner had a prior criminal history which included convictions for felony possession of narcotics, failure to appear, and violation of probation.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was disproportionate because there was no actual violence inflicted upon the bank employees.   Petitioner addressed the Division and apologized and asked for mercy.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and indicated that the imposed sentence was less than what the State had argued for and within the agreed upon sentencing range.   The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, his criminal history, and the nature of these offenses.

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 as well as the nature of the instant offenses, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J.

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

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