State of Connecticut v. 373058 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Richard Dakers.   He was convicted by a jury trial of the charges of larceny in the third degree ¹ and interfering with an officer.²  He was acquitted, however, of the charge of robbery involving an occupied motor vehicle.³  The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 6 years suspended after 42 months, followed by 3 years of probation.

The facts underlying the conviction are as follows.   The Hartford police received a complaint from the victim who claimed that someone had forced him from his car at gunpoint and stolen his car.   Shortly after the police received the complaint, they observed the petitioner driving the car erratically and at a high rate of speed.   The police gave chase, but the petitioner refused to stop, eventually crashed the car and fled the scene on foot.   The petitioner was soon thereafter arrested, but not before physically resisting the apprehension.

The petitioner claims that his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ⁴ because he was acquitted of the charge of car jacking;  he was only 18 years old at the time of the crime;  he had no adult criminal record at the time of the crime;  and he is willing to pay for the damage he did to the vehicle.

The state opposes any reduction in the sentence.   It points out that the petitioner has a juvenile record for carrying a dangerous weapon, has been involved in gang violence, has failed to earn a high school diploma and has managed to father five children, but does not provide financial support for any of them.   The state also argues that the petitioner's conduct endangered the lives of the victim and other people in the community.   When viewed in light of the petitioner's conduct and character, the state claims that the sentence imposed is fair.

The Division notes that the trial court, which of course heard the evidence at trial, indicated that it believed, notwithstanding the petitioner's acquittal on the car jacking charge, that the petitioner was in fact carrying a handgun at the time of the incident and did use it to steal the car.   At the petitioner's sentence review hearing counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the state agreed that even though the petitioner was acquitted on the car jacking charge, the trial court was entitled by law to consider the evidence regarding that charge to fashion its sentence on the charges that were proven at trial.

After considering all the relevant information and arguments of counsel, the Division finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court was both appropriate and proportionate pursuant to Section 43–28.   The petitioner's conduct was extremely reckless and dangerous.   It is fortunate that no one was killed or seriously injured as a result of the crime he committed.   The sentence he received was well within the parameters of Section 43–28.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Joan A. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–124(a)(1).   This crime carries a maximum prison sentence of five years..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–124(a)(1).   This crime carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–167a.   This crime carries a maximum prison sentence of one year..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–167a.   This crime carries a maximum prison sentence of one year.

FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–136a..  FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–136a.

FN4. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN4. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

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