State of Connecticut v. 304778 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Marcus Hodge, pled guilty to the charges of manslaughter in the second degree,¹ evading responsibility ² and failure to register as a sex offender.³  In exchange for these guilty pleas the state and petitioner agreed to a “cap” sentence of 15 years in prison with the right to argue to the trial court for a reduced sentence.   The trial court, after reviewing all the relevant materials and listening to the arguments of the parties, imposed a total effective sentence of 15 years to serve.⁴

The factual basis of the conviction is as follows.   On March 27, 2010 the petitioner was driving a car that he stole from his former girlfriend.   His then current girlfriend was a passenger in the vehicle.   He was speeding at the time and struck a man who was crossing the street while on his way to work.   The petitioner failed to stop and render assistance to the man, fled the scene and failed to report the incident.   The victim died from his injuries.   Through their investigation the police were able to collect DNA evidence showing the petitioner and his new girlfriend were in the car that ran over the victim.

The petitioner claims that his 15–year sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ⁵ because he accepts responsibility for the crime and he caused the victim's death by accident.   The petitioner also asks that the Division, when deciding his sentence review application, be aware that he was neglected by his parents when he was a minor, that he was raised mostly in foster care and that he is “salvageable.”

The state argues the sentence should remain intact.   It points out that the petitioner has been convicted of multiple felonies, was on probation at the time he recklessly killed the victim and has violated each of the multiple probations that he has received during his criminal career.

The Division has carefully reviewed the relevant facts and argument pertinent to the petitioner's sentence review application and finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43–28.   The petitioner ran over the innocent victim, refused to stop to help him and failed to report the incident.   In addition, the petitioner was on probation at the time of the crime and has a serious criminal record dating back to 2002.   The trial court gave him a sentence that was more than fair in light of the gravity of the offence and his criminal history.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

Kari A. Dooley

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–56(a).   This crime is punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–56(a).   This crime is punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 14–224(a).   This crime is punishable by not less than one year nor more than 10 years in prison..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 14–224(a).   This crime is punishable by not less than one year nor more than 10 years in prison.

FN3. See General Statutes Section 54–251.   This crime is punishable by a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison..  FN3. See General Statutes Section 54–251.   This crime is punishable by a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison.

FN4. When the petitioner committed the crimes that are the subject of this sentence review application, he was on probation under Docket Number CR02–125–481.   He failed to file a sentence review application in that matter.   The time “owed” on the aforementioned Docket Number (i.e., the unexecuted portion of that sentence) was 7 years and 3 months.   The petitioner admitted that violation of probation and was sentenced to the 7 years and 3 months concurrent with the 15 years sentence he is now asking to have reviewed by the Division.The petitioner also failed to file a sentence review application on Docket Numbers CR08–149989, CR08–14990 and CR09–150926.   In each of these Docket Numbers the petitioner admitted a violation of probation charge and received a sentence that the trial court ordered to run concurrently with the 15–year sentence that is the subject of his sentence review application..  FN4. When the petitioner committed the crimes that are the subject of this sentence review application, he was on probation under Docket Number CR02–125–481.   He failed to file a sentence review application in that matter.   The time “owed” on the aforementioned Docket Number (i.e., the unexecuted portion of that sentence) was 7 years and 3 months.   The petitioner admitted that violation of probation and was sentenced to the 7 years and 3 months concurrent with the 15 years sentence he is now asking to have reviewed by the Division.The petitioner also failed to file a sentence review application on Docket Numbers CR08–149989, CR08–14990 and CR09–150926.   In each of these Docket Numbers the petitioner admitted a violation of probation charge and received a sentence that the trial court ordered to run concurrently with the 15–year sentence that is the subject of his sentence review application.

FN5. 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.”.  FN5. 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., Fischer, Brian T., Dooley, Kari, A., J.