State of Connecticut v. 240391 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Solomon White.   He was convicted by a jury of the following:

1. Murder § 53a–54a with a penalty of up to sixty years.   His sentence was fifty years.

2. Criminal Use of a Firearm § 53a–216(a) with a penalty of up to five years.   This sentence merged with the Murder sentence.

3. Tampering with a Witness § 53a–151(a) with a penalty of up to ten years.   His sentence was seven years consecutive to the first count.

4. Conspiracy to Commit Tampering with a Witness § 53a–48, § 53a–151(a) with a penalty up to ten years.   This sentence merged with the Tampering with a Witness sentence.

5. Bribery of a Witness § 53a–149(a) with a penalty of up to ten years.   This sentence was seven years concurrent.

6. Conspiracy to Commit Bribery of a Witness § 53a–48, § 53a–149a with a penalty of up to ten years.   His sentence was three years consecutive.

His total effective sentence was sixty years to serve.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   The petitioner and the victim had an ongoing argument on August 27, 2005 on Vine Street in Hartford.   The argument ended when the petitioner shot the victim.   The victim died from the gunshot wound.

The petitioner was found and arrested a month after the shooting.   While in prison he wrote letters to a witness asking her to not appear at any hearing and to lie to the police.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner argues he acted in the moment and this should be a manslaughter conviction not murder.   The petitioner requests his sentence be modified to forty years to serve.

The state argues the petitioner was a violent person with an extensive felony record.   The petitioner left the area of the verbal dispute with the victim to retrieve a gun.   He then returned with the gun and murdered the victim.

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.   The petitioner had eight previous felonies including robberies and gun possessions.   He had time to go retrieve the gun he used to murder the victim.

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 § 43–23 et seq.

The Sentence is Affirmed

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

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