State of Connecticut v. 336833 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Lavail Greene.   He was convicted of violation of probation after a hearing before the trial court and given a total effective sentence of 39 months to serve.

The factual basis for the conviction is as follows.   In December of 2005 the petitioner was convicted of larceny in the third degree, which is the original crime that underlies petitioner's probation.   In the larceny in the third degree case the petitioner and an accomplice forcibly took car keys from the victim and then stole his vehicle.   The petitioner then drove the stolen car and was involved in a crash.   At the time the petitioner was convicted of the larceny in the third degree charge he received a concurrent suspended sentence on a Massachusetts felony drug charge.

On October 8, 2009 petitioner committed his first violation of probation by committing the crimes of reckless endangerment and breach of peace.   In that case the petitioner assaulted the female victim and led the police on a foot chase.

The petitioner was subsequently violated on his probation a second time on April 5, 2011 when he was arrested on charges of weapon in a motor vehicle and possession of marijuana.   Those criminal charges were eventually nolled, but had a sufficient factual basis to support the violation of probation allegation.

The petitioner was then violated on his probation for a third time based on his participation in the Hartford gun point robbery of a woman on January 12, 2012.   The victim identified the petitioner as the assailant based on her review of a photo array.

The petitioner claims that his sentence of 39 months is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ¹ .  In support of this argument, he asserts that most of his criminal conduct was minor in nature and that at the time of the offenses he was a young man without an education.   At the sentence review hearing counsel for the petitioner asked for a sentence of between 24 to 26 months.

The state strongly opposes any reduction in the sentence.   It argues that the petitioner not only committed multiple crimes while on probation, but failed to cooperate in drug treatment as required by the terms of his probation.   The petitioner, according to the state, continues to violate the law with impunity and refuses to address his drug problem.   Therefore, he deserves the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The Division, having carefully reviewed the record and considered the arguments of counsel, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is both appropriate and proportionate.   The petitioner violated his probation repeatedly by engaging in criminal conduct and refusing to cooperate in his own rehabilitation by getting drug help.   The trial court's decision to impose 39 months of incarceration is justified in light of the facts and circumstances.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White

Brian T. Fischer

Elpedio N. Vitale

White, Fischer, and Vitale, J's. participated in this decision.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in 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.”.  FN1. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in 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., Vitale, Elpedio N., J.s