State of Connecticut v. 248150 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Orema Taft. A jury found him guilty of committing the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 45 years ¹ to serve.   The petitioner claims that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ² and asks the Division to reduce it.

The facts underlying the petitioner's criminal conduct are as follows.   On September 28, 2001 on Pembroke Street in the City of Bridgeport, the petitioner and three other individuals, including Miguel Zapata, Luisa Bermudez and Maritza Gutierrez, agreed to kill the victim, Zoltan Kiss, and then caused his death by shooting him approximately twenty-five times.   The victim was in the area to purchase drugs at the time of his death.   The crime went unsolved for years until a woman named Catherine Perez came forward with information linking the co-conspirators to the crime.   In addition, the police investigation uncovered forensic evidence that implicated Bermudez and discovered self-incriminating statements that both Zapata and the petitioner each made after they killed the victim.

In support of this claim that his sentence is improper pursuant to Section 43–28, the petitioner argues that the jury acquitted him of carrying a pistol without a permit and criminal possession of a firearm and that he was thereby cleared of being the actual shooter.   He further claims that he was less culpable in the murder than Zapata.   According to the petitioner, the evidence clearly shows that it was Zapata who acted as the trigger man and Zapata who actively intimidated Perez to keep her from cooperating with the state sooner.

The state objects to any change in the sentence, arguing that the petitioner has a history of violence, evidenced by the fact that he committed a first degree robbery on the same day as he aided his confederates in killing the victim.   The state further stresses that at the time of the homicide, the petitioner and his partners in crime were part of a drug gang and that he has criminal convictions for carrying a dangerous weapon and burglary.

The Division, after carefully considering the facts, arguments of counsel and all of the relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43–28.   The petitioner acted in concert with three other people to kill the victim in what was, in the words of the trial court, a “brutal assassination.”   It is significant that the petitioner was involved in a separate violent crime, i.e., a first degree robbery, on the very day that he and his cohorts murdered Zoltan Kiss. Furthermore, the trial court was aware that after the petitioner engaged in the drug-related murder, he continued to engage in the drug selling activity in the area where he killed the victim.   There simply is no persuasive reason to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The trial court imposed the 45 years consecutively to the sentence of 102 months the petitioner was then serving for the crime of robbery in the first degree..  FN1. The trial court imposed the 45 years consecutively to the sentence of 102 months the petitioner was then serving for the crime of robbery in the first degree.

FN2. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, 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 the 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., Fischer, Brian T., J.s