State of Connecticut v. 241224 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is David Abrams.   On docket number CR00–110691 the petitioner was convicted by a jury of the following charges:

1) Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder.

2) Assault in the First Degree.

3) Criminal Possession of a Firearm.

4) Commission of a Class A, B or C felony with a firearm.

The court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 46 years with 9 years of special parole.

On Docket Number 131949 the petitioner was convicted by the court for Violation of Probation.   His sentence was five years to run consecutive to the above matter for a total effective sentence of 51 years to serve with nine years of special parole.

It is from these sentences the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   On November 4, 2000 the petitioner shot his girlfriend numerous times.   She received bullet wounds to her arm, leg and buttocks along with broken bones.   The petitioner was under a protective order at the time he shot his girlfriend.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner argues his sentence was a murder sentence.   He argues he was a college graduate.   The petitioner addressed the panel and apologized for his remarks at his sentencing.   He stated he was immature at the time.   He requests a sentence of between 18 and 25 years.

The state argues the petitioner was lying in wait for the victim.   The victim was defenseless and was shot by the petitioner, suffering serious injuries.   The petitioner shared no remorse for shooting her and was on probation for a weapons offense at the time of the shooting.

Pursuant to Connecticut 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.”   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and Connecticut General Statute § 51–194 et seq.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   The petitioner planned this violent assault on his girlfriend.   He was on probation for a weapons charge.   The victim was very fortunate to survive this horrific shooting.

In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43–23.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

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

Fischer, Brian T., Alexander, Joan K., Ginocchio, James P., J.