State of Connecticut v. 292414 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Petitioner Ramon Rodriguez pled guilty to:  felony murder, in violation of C.G.S. § 53a–54c;  kidnapping in the first degree, in violation of C.G.S. § 53a–92(a)(2)(b);  and robbery in the first degree, in violation of C.G.S. § 53a–134(a)(1).   He would have faced a possible maximum period of incarceration of 105 years.   However, pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, the state agreed not to seek a sentence in excess of 80 years.   The petitioner reserved the right to seek a sentence lower than 80 years.

The crimes for which the petitioner stands convicted arise out of a plot to rob a taxi driver.   The petitioner and three others, all of whom were prosecuted and convicted, called for a cab The cab arrived, driven by the victim.   Shortly into the cab ride, a co-defendant pulled a knife and robbed the driver.   Thereafter, they removed the driver from the car, stripped him of his pants and his shoes, and forced him into the back seat.   A co-defendant then drove the victim, the petitioner and two co-defendants to a textile mill in Plainfield.   There, the victim was savagely beaten to death by all four perpetrators.

The court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 45 years incarceration followed by 15 years of special parole.¹

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence was too high in light of several mitigating factors:  (a) petitioner was only 17 years old at the time of the offense;  (b) he was not the primary mover in terms of planning the robbery and he was the least culpable participant in the death of the victim;  and (c) petitioner was very low functioning and was socially, intellectually and economically disadvantaged.   Counsel also relied upon the information provided to the trial court at the original sentencing.   The petitioner addressed the Division as well.   He stated that he is a different person now and that he has not had any problems since being in jail.

The state asked the Division to increase the petitioner's sentence to 65 years of incarceration, or in the alternative, to affirm the trial court's sentence.   The state argued that the sentence is substantially below the 80–year cap of the plea agreement and that the petitioner's involvement, notwithstanding his age and his limitations, did not warrant such a lenient sentence.

The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court was keenly aware of the petitioner's intellectual and social limitations.   The trial court reflected upon the petitioner's age and the extraordinary hurdles and abuses he may have suffered at the hands of others.   The court reviewed not only the PSI but also the reports of the mental health providers who had examined the petitioner.   Balancing these mitigating factors, the court reviewed the horrific and senseless nature of this murder.   The court discussed the tragic impact upon the victim's young family.   In a thoughtful and articulate discourse, the trial court then struck the balance between these competing factors, and fashioned a sentence that would advance the various purposes of sentencing.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 43–23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in 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 end denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statute § 51–194 et seq.

Taking into consideration each of these factors, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.   In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Kari A. Dooley, J.

Gary J. White, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

Dooley, J:  White, J. and Fischer, J. participated in this decision.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Prior to the petitioner's sentencing, one co-defendant had received a total effective sentence of 80 years to serve.   A second had received a total effective sentence of 70 years to serve.   The third co-defendant, who cooperated with the prosecution, was pending sentencing with a plea agreement that contemplated a 45–year cap with the right to argue for less..  FN1. Prior to the petitioner's sentencing, one co-defendant had received a total effective sentence of 80 years to serve.   A second had received a total effective sentence of 70 years to serve.   The third co-defendant, who cooperated with the prosecution, was pending sentencing with a plea agreement that contemplated a 45–year cap with the right to argue for less.

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