State of Connecticut v. 362280 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Nelson Sanchez, petitioner, entered pleas of guilty to 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;  and, one count of Robbery in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–134(a)(3), with a penalty of one to twenty years.   The sentencing agreement was a maximum sentence of thirty years execution suspended after fifteen years to serve with three years probation.   There was a right to argue for a lesser sentence.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty years execution suspended after fifteen years to serve with three years probation.   It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incidents for which the petitioner was convicted arose out of the following circumstances.   In one case, the petitioner displayed what appeared to be an AK47 rifle and stole the victim's car and cell phone.   In the second case, the petitioner attacked the victim with a metal object, severely injuring the victim, before taking the victim's car.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner indicated that the sentence imposed should be reduced to a sentence between eight and twelve years to serve.   Counsel argued that his client was young, had no adult record, and had a history of mental illness.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the significantly violent crimes and the impact that these incidents had on the victims.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the offenses.   The court indicated that the petitioner posed “a danger to the community.”  (Transcript at page 22.)

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 offenses, 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. Js.