State of Connecticut v. 265786 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Seth Wakeman, petitioner, entered a plea of guilty to one count of Possession with Intent to Sell Controlled Substances in violation of General Statutes § 21a–277(b), with a penalty of one year to seven years;  and, one count of Failure to Appear in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–172, with a penalty of one to five years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of seven years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The facts surrounding this conviction were the result of the execution of a search warrant which showed the petitioner to be in possession of 83 marijuana plants and nine pounds of dried marijuana with an estimated street value of $58,000 as well as a subsequent failure to appear.   While awaiting sentencing, the petitioner was involved in a domestic disturbance where the police investigation revealed an additional 27 marijuana plants in the petitioner's possession.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner should receive a four-year sentence.   Counsel indicated that the petitioner was being punished for something that was no longer a crime in certain places.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and indicated that the petitioner was distributing marijuana as opposed to someone who possessed a small quantity for personal use.   The State argued that the sentence should be affirmed.   The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background and his criminal history.

Pursuant to 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.”  Practice Book § 43–28.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background and his numerous convictions for similar offenses, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

Hadden, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Hadden, Arthur, C., Js.