State of Connecitcut v. 202735 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

James Cummings, petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of Murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–8 and 53a–54a(a), each with a penalty of twenty-five to sixty years;  two counts of Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–49 and 53a–54a(a), each with a penalty of one to twenty years;  one count of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48(a) and 53a–54a(a), with a penalty of one to twenty years;  and, one count of Conspiracy to Commit Assault in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48(a) and 53a–59(a)(1), with a penalty of one to twenty years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of seventy-five years to serve.   It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted arose out of a gang dispute between the Los Solidos and Latin Kings in New Britain.   As a result, two persons were fatally wounded by gunfire and others were injured by gunshot and shattered glass.   See State v. Cummings, 91 Conn.App. 735 aff'd (2005), 276 Conn. 923 cert. denied, (2005).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the disparity between the petitioner's sentence and those received by his co-defendants required a modification by the Division.   Counsel argued that the seventy-five-year sentence was substantially longer than any sentence imposed on the co-defendants.   Counsel submitted a memorandum to the Division on October 22, 2013 which thoroughly outlined all of the sentences imposed in this case.   Counsel asked the Division to reduce the sentence to twenty-five years, although the petitioner requested a modification between thirty and thirty-five years to serve.   The petitioner addressed the Division and asked that he not be made to bear the burden of all the co-defendants' actions.

Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the impact that this crime had on the city of New Britain.   The State explained that the incident was the result of the use of an AK–47 being shot into a crowd of people and that this gang violence terrorized the city.   The State argued that the petitioner was the only one of the co-defendants who had been convicted of charges of murder in this incident.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, his criminal history, and the nature of the offense.   The court indicated that the petitioner's “responsibility alone for setting these events in motion, as part of the leadership of the gang” required a lengthy period of incarceration.   (Transcript at page 34.)   The sentencing court was aware that another co-defendant had been acquitted on the charges related to murder.

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.

The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background, the nature of the instant offense, and the charges for which he stands convicted, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

James P. Ginnocchio, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Ginocchio, James P., Js. participated in this decision.