State of Connecticut v. 305523 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Earl Thompson, petitioner, was convicted after a trial to a jury of one count of Robbery in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–134(a)(4), with a penalty of one to twenty years;  one count of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 and 53a–134(a)(4), with a penalty of one to twenty years;  and, one count of Kidnapping in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–92(a)(2)(B), with a penalty of ten to twenty-five years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of forty-five years to serve.   It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted arose out of a residential burglary which the homeowner interrupted when she returned home from work.   She was held for several hours at gunpoint by the petitioner and a co-defendant.   She believed the men to be looking for drugs or money.   The petitioner was linked to the incident through a DNA match.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner indicated that the sentence imposed was “disproportionate” because there was no serious physical injury.   Counsel urged the Division to impose a sentence between ten and twenty years to serve.   The petitioner addressed the Division and said that he did not commit the crime and wanted to return to his family and society.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the significant impact that this incident had on the victim.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, his criminal history, and the nature of the offense.   The court indicated that the petitioner had not obeyed court orders in the past and was an individual who seemed to think that “security in our society is irrelevant or meaningless.”   (Transcript at page 38.)

Pursuant to 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.”  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 et seq.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the nature of the instant offense, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

White, J.

Fischer, J.

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

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