State of Connecticut v. 353993 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Vincent Fairchild.   On January 24, 2012 he voluntarily pled guilty to burglary in the third degree and larceny in the third degree in exchange for a sentence of 5 years suspended after 14 months, followed by probation.   The petitioner, however, asked for a continuance until March 6, 2012 for sentencing and was warned, pursuant to State v. Garvin,¹ that if he committed a new crime prior to that date, he would be subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years and three months.   The petitioner agreed and indicated that he understood that he was subject to an enhanced sentence if he committed a new crime and sentencing was therefore postponed at his request.   The petitioner was thereafter arrested for committing another crime between the date of his original plea and the date of sentencing and the trial court imposed a sentence of 7 years in lieu of the sentence of 5 years suspended after 14 month.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   On June 30, 2012 the petitioner committed a residential burglary in Danbury and was apprehended by police shortly after the crime and while in possession of property stolen during the break in.   After his guilty plea and prior to his sentencing in this matter, the petitioner committed a second residential burglary on February 11, 2012 in which he stole personal property, including a motor vehicle, from the home of a deceased person.

The petitioner asks that his sentence be reduced from the 7 years to 7 years suspended after 14 months.   He argues that the enhanced sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ² in light of his drug addiction.   He claims that the illness of drug addiction compelled him to engage in criminal conduct and he is in need of rehabilitation rather than punishment.

The state asks that the sentence remain intact.   It points out that the petitioner has failed to complete multiple opportunities to get drug treatment, violated several probations which required him to get drug treatment and has been convicted of multiple larcenies.   In addition, the state argues that the petitioner knew that he was subject to an increased penalty if he committed a new crime between the date of plea and sentencing and nevertheless engaged in felonious conduct.

The Division only has authority to modify a criminal sentence that fails to comply with the direction of Section 43–28.   The petitioner's sentence clearly falls within the parameters of that provision.   The trial court carefully considered the nature of the crimes involved, the petitioner's personal history and all the other relevant factors before imposing sentence.   There is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate in the sentence, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner committed a residential burglary while awaiting sentencing on a pending residential burglary.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer,J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. 242 Conn. 296 (1997)..  FN1. 242 Conn. 296 (1997).

FN2. 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. 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., Alexander, Joan K., J. Fischer, Brian T., J.