State of Connecticut v. 356875 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Ronnell Deyshawn Hall. The petitioner entered pleas of guilty before the Honorable Elliot Solomon to the following:

1) One count of Robbery in the Second Degree Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–135(a)(2) with a penalty of up to ten years.

2) One count of Robbery in the Second Degree Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–135(a)(2) with a penalty of up to ten years.

His total effective sentence was four years consecutive to a sentence previously imposed in the Hartford Judicial District.

The facts are as follows.   On October 19, 2011, Vernon police responded to a robbery at a restaurant.   The suspect was described as a black male in a hoodie wearing gloves and carrying a tiny revolver.   The suspect pointed the gun at the restaurant employees as shown in the security video and he removed all the money from a cash register.   From the suspect's distinctive style of sneakers, the police tracked him to a liquor store in East Hartford and attempted to apprehend him as he exited the store with his face covered and carrying a gun.   The suspect fled and had to be tasered.   After his arrest, the defendant told the police that he had consumed a significant amount of alcohol when he committed the robberies and that he did not recall specific events except for running from the police.   He did, however, admit to committing several other robberies and he admitted the money stolen from the robberies was used for the gang to which he was a member.

The petitioner claims his sentence is appropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   He claims that he is remorseful regarding his past criminal conduct.   That at the time he was immature, heavily involved in gang activities and he was addicted to drugs and alcohol.   He now claims that he has matured, has denounced his gang membership and he has remained clean and sober.   Petitoner's attorney, Douglas Ovian, has asked the court for a reduction of the four-year sentence that was to run consecutive to his Hartford sentence.

The state, through attorney Matthew Gedansky, argues that the sentence was appropriate if not favorable to the petitioner.   That at the time of the sentencing Judge Solomon was very patient and considerate as to the positive attributes possessed by the defendant.   Judge Solomon did not impose the maximum sentence according to the plea agreement.   The state argues that the petitioner was heavily involved in gang-related activities and the petitioner pled guilty to two felonies which involved the use of a gun

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 Statutes § 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, a self-admitted gang member, pled guilty to two robbery counts which carry a maximum period of ten years on each count.   Each robbery was accomplished by the use of what appeared to be a deadly weapon.

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

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

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

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