State of Connecticut v. 209203 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner Lawrence Smith was found guilty after trial and convicted of the following:

1) One count of Murder Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–54a with a penalty of up to sixty years.

2) One count of Felony Murder Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–54c with a penalty of up to sixty years.

3) One count of Conspiracy to Commit Murder Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–48/53a–54a with a penalty of up to sixty years.

4) One count of Conspiracy to commit Robbery in the First Degree Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–48/53a–134(a)(2) with a penalty of up to twenty years (merged with conspiracy to commit murder).

5) One count of Hindering Prosecution Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–165 with a penalty of 5 years, mandatory minimum.

His total effective sentence was seventy-five years.

The facts are as follows.   Meriden Police received a report of a missing person on July 21, 2000.   On September 2, 2000, police arrested Bobby Marrow and Julio Bonilla in connection with a kidnapping and drug-related robbery at 81 South Vine Street which was the residence of the offender.

Marrow provided police with information about the abduction and execution of a Dominican drug courier known as “Hochy,” who was the missing person.   Marrow stated that on July 21, 2000, Miguel Estrella arranged to meet the victim and that Rivers and Marrow abducted him at gun point, taped his mouth with duct tape, shot him in the torso and then went on to suffocate him.   All codefendants were involved in executing the victim, hiding his body and disposing of his motor vehicle.

Smith was arrested and charged with Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Kidnapping, however those charges were nolled because Estrella and Morrow could not testify against Smith because they were protected by their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.   After the codefendants were tried and convicted the right no longer precluded them from testifying against the offender.   Smith was subsequently arrested and convicted.

The petitioner, through his attorney, Audin Grogins, claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The thrust of the petitioner's argument is that the petitioner, who was not present during the actual murder, received a disproportionately harsher sentence as compared to the codefendants.   Rivers was sentenced to twenty-five years on accessory to commit murder.   Morrow was sentenced on the charge of murder to forty years suspended after thirty-three years followed by five probation.   Estrella was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to commit murder and received a sentence of sixty years.   Additionally, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had a minor record prior to the offense in question.   He had two felony drug convictions.   The petitioner is seeking a sentence consistent with the codefendants.

The state, through attorney Brian Sibley, argues that the sentence was appropriate.   That although the petitioner temporarily walked away from the murder scene, he was fully involved in every aspect of the planning of this gruesome crime.   After the murder, the offender met up with the codefendants and assumed the task of cutting up the victim's corpse with a chainsaw, placing the victim's head, hands and feet in a bucket of acid and then placing the remaining body parts in two grey garbage cans.

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 court in this case.   The petitioner was convicted on five serious felony counts with combined penalties that far exceed the sentence he actually received.   The petitioner certainly distinguished himself from his codefendants by way of the extremely disturbing and unconscionable manner in which he disposed of the victim's body.   The petitioner has demonstrated no remorse for his criminal acts.   In fact, he claims that his convictions are based on lies.   He deserves no consideration or leniency.

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.

James P. Ginocchio, Judge

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Arthur C. Hadden, Judge

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

Ginocchio, James P., Fischer, Brian T., Hadden, Arthur C., Js.