State of Connecticut v. Stephen Nelson (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Stephen Nelson, was found guilty after a jury trial of Kidnaping in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–92(a)(2)(B), with a penalty of ten to twenty-five years;  Assault in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–59(a)(1), with a penalty of not less than five to twenty years;  and, Burglary in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–101(a)(1) and § 53a–101(a)(2), with a penalty of not less than five to twenty years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of fifty-five years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The charges brought against the petitioner occurred in January of 2005.   The petitioner waited outside the victim's home and then abducted and tortured the victim inside his residence.   See State v. Nelson, 118 Conn.App. 831 (2010).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence that the court imposed was too high based on the conduct involved as the victim was treated and released and suffered no long-term physical impact.   Counsel also argued that the petitioner had cooperated with the State in another matter after this sentence had been imposed.   The Division cannot take into account the petitioner's cooperation as it was not available to the trial judge at the time he imposed the sentence.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and asked that the sentence be affirmed.   The sentencing court found that “the facts that underlie these convictions are horrendous.”  (Transcript page 27.)

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.”  Practice Book § 43–28.   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51–194.   Taking into consideration the nature of the criminal conduct, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

Frechette, J.

Alexander, J., Fischer, J., Frechette, J. participated in this decision.

Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Frechette, Matthew E., J.s