State of Connecticut v. 257240 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Abin Britton.   He was convicted by a jury of the following:

1.)  Manslaughter in the First Degree, § 53a–55(a)(1) with a penalty of up to twenty years.   This count merged with the Felony Murder conviction.

2.) Felony Murder § 53a–54c with a penalty up to sixty years.   His sentence was sixty years.

3.) Kidnapping in the First Degree (2 counts) § 53a–92 with a penalty of up to twenty-five years.   His sentence was twenty-five years consecutive to the Felony Murder and on the second Kidnapping conviction twenty-five years to run concurrent.

4.) Robbery in the first degree § 53a–134(a)(1) with a penalty of up to twenty years.

His sentence was twenty years concurrent.   His total effective sentence was eighty-five years to serve.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   On August 22, 1998 the defendant, along with several others, beat, kidnapped, robbed and eventually murdered the victim.   The victim's body was dumped in a wooded area.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner claims he was found not guilty on the most serious charge pending against him.   The petitioner's counsel argues a sentence of fifty-five years is more appropriate.   The petitioner addressed the division and stated he was sorry for what happened and hopes the victim's family can forgive him.

The state argues that this was a horrific crime and requests the sentence be affirmed.   The victim's mother addressed the panel and stated she has a hole in her heart that will never go away.   She 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.   A young man was senselessly beaten, robbed, kidnapped and then murdered.

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 § 43–28.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary J. White, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

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