State of Connecticut v. 368621 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

John Davis, Jr., petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Criminal Possession of a Firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a–217, with a penalty of not less than two years to five years;  one count of Carrying a Pistol without a Permit in violation of General Statutes § 29–35(a), with a penalty of not less than one to five years;  one count of Weapon in a Motor Vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 29–38, with a penalty of one to five years;  one count of Reckless Endangerment First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–63, with a penalty of up to one year;  one count of Interfering with an Officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167a, with a penalty of up to one year;  and, one count of Reckless Driving in violation of General Statutes § 14–222, with a penalty of not more than thirty days.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years execution suspended after nine years to serve followed by three years probation.¹  It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident arose out of a motor vehicle stop.   The petitioner did not obey the officer's instructions to stop and drove down a street the wrong way, fled from his vehicle, and tossed a .40mm Smith and Wesson handgun into a dumpster.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that he had no history of violence and that his pending files had been wrongfully used as misconduct evidence in sentencing.   Counsel asked the Division to reduce the petitioner's sentence to five years to serve.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and described the extremely dangerous chase in this offense.   The State also noted that at the time of the possession of this firearm, the petitioner was on probation for a felony.   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 it had “an obligation to protect society from violent felons.”  (Transcript at page 18.)

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.

The Division may modify sentences only 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 as well as the nature of the instant offense, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

James P. Ginnochio, J.

Arthur C. Hadden, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. This sentence was to run consecutively to a sentence on a Violation of Probation for which the petitioner was serving fifty-one months suspended after twenty-five months to serve with a sixteen-month period of probation..  FN1. This sentence was to run consecutively to a sentence on a Violation of Probation for which the petitioner was serving fifty-one months suspended after twenty-five months to serve with a sixteen-month period of probation.

Alexander, Joan K., James P. Ginnochio, Arthur C. Hadden, Js. participated in this decision.