State of Connecticut v. 377586 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner in this matter is Louis Torres.   He entered a guilty plea to the charges of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in exchange for a cap sentence between 45 years and the mandatory minimum term of 25 years.   Both the petitioner and the state retained the right to argue for a sentence within the aforementioned range.   After considering the facts, the germane information and the parties' arguments, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 38 years to serve.

The facts underlying the crime are as follows.   On July 12, 2010 the petitioner and two confederates planned and executed a robbery at a Bridgeport grocery store.   The crime was recorded on a surveillance camera.   The petitioner and his male co-conspirator entered the store wearing masks while the female co-conspirator waited outside and acted as the getaway driver.   The male conspirator killed the store clerk with a shotgun blast to the face just before the two men stole the store cash register.   The three perpetrators then fled the area.   They were eventually apprehended, prosecuted and convicted for their criminal conduct.

The petitioner asks for a reduction of his sentence from 38 years to 35 years.   He argues that the sentence imposed is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ¹ notwithstanding the fact that it is within the range that he negotiated with the state.   He claims that his sentence should be reduced because he is remorseful, he did not intend to harm the victim and that he did not fire the fatal shot.

The state asks that the sentence remain unchanged.   It points out that the petitioner tried to cover up the crime by destroying evidence, that he attempted to intimidate a witness who would have offered incriminating evidence against him and that he wrote a threatening letter to his own mother whom he blamed for his apprehension.   The state also asserts it does not matter whether or not the petitioner intended to harm the victim or whether he actually shot the victim because he committed the crime of felony murder.²

The Division only has authority to modify a criminal sentence that is inappropriate or disproportionate.   The sentence imposed by the trial court in this matter is clearly both appropriate and proportionate within the meaning of Section 43–28.   The petitioner's claim of remorse is disingenuous in light of his attempt to destroy evidence, his effort to intimidate a state's witness and the threats he made against his own mother for helping the law enforcement authorities to bring him to justice.   In addition, even if he did not intend any harm to the victim, which itself is a questionable proposition, it does not matter.   The petitioner committed felony murder which does not require a specific intent to kill.   The petitioner played a key role in a brutal crime that led to the death of an innocent victim.   He also received a sentence within a range to which he agreed.   There simply is no good reason to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White

Joan K. Alexander

Brian T. Fischer

White, Alexander, and Fischer, Js. 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.”

FN2. The crime of felony murder does not require that the state prove that a defendant had the specific intent to kill another person, only that a he committed the requisite crime of conspiracy to commit robbery and that he caused the death of a non-participant in the crime while in furtherance of or in flight from the crime.   See General Statutes Section 53a–54c..  FN2. The crime of felony murder does not require that the state prove that a defendant had the specific intent to kill another person, only that a he committed the requisite crime of conspiracy to commit robbery and that he caused the death of a non-participant in the crime while in furtherance of or in flight from the crime.   See General Statutes Section 53a–54c.

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