State of Connecticut v. 311844 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Marquis Jones.   He was convicted by a jury for the crime of Felony Murder in violation of General Statutes Section 53a–54c and sentenced to forty years in prison.¹  The petitioner appealed his conviction, but the decision of the trial court was affirmed.   See State v. Jones, aff'd., 135 Conn.App. 788 (2012), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 925 (2012).

The facts underlying the petitioner's criminal conduct are detailed in the Appellate Court's decision.   For purposes of this opinion, however, it is sufficient to state the facts as follows.   During the early morning hours of December 27, 2002, the petitioner and his accomplice, Gary Browning, lured the victim and his cousin, Sam Moore, to a backyard in a Bridgeport neighborhood for the purpose of selling them marijuana.   Instead of selling drugs to the victim and his cousin, however, the confederates robbed the victim of his personal property and the petitioner used a handgun to shoot the victim to death.   Moore managed to save his own life by escaping.

The police investigated the crime and the petitioner was eventually arrested and convicted at trial based on the testimony of both Moore and Browning.

The petitioner denies that he personally shot the victim and therefore argues that the sentence he received from the trial court is “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” in violation of Practice Book Section 43–28.²  He claims that the testimony of Sam Moore was inconsistent and unbelievable.   He also argues that Gary Browning lied on the witness stand about the petitioner's role in the crime in order to earn a reduced sentence for his own criminal conduct.   Even though he did not specifically state it, the petitioner is apparently asking that his sentence be reduced to the minimum sentence of twenty-five years.

The state opposes any sentence reduction and suggests that if anything, the petitioner's sentence should be increased to the maximum sixty-year sentence.   It points out that because the petitioner was convicted of Felony Murder, it does not matter whether or not he personally used the handgun to kill the victim.   All that matters is that the victim was killed by either the petitioner or Brown while those two committed the robbery.   Moreover, the state asserts that the petitioner is a violent man and a danger to society.   He has been convicted of assaulting another person with a handgun and has amassed over one hundred tickets for misconduct while incarcerated over a period of years.   The state further argues that the petitioner's criminal record stretches back to 2003 and includes not only a conviction for Assault in the First Degree, but also includes convictions for the crime of Weapon in a Motor Vehicle and Carrying a Pistol Without a Permit.   The petitioner, according to the state, is clearly a danger to the community and deserves to spend a lengthy period of time behind bars.

The Division, having carefully considered the factual basis of the petitioner's conviction, the parties' arguments and other relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is within the parameters of Section 43–28.   The petitioner refuses to accept responsibility for his violent conduct and has plainly demonstrated through his criminal history that he is a dangerous person.   He is not amenable to rehabilitation and received a sentence that was more than fair under the facts and circumstances.   There simply is no persuasive reason to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. This sentence was consecutive to a ten-year sentence that he was serving for committing the crime of Assault in the First Degree.   In that case the petitioner used a handgun to shoot another victim in the face..  FN1. This sentence was consecutive to a ten-year sentence that he was serving for committing the crime of Assault in the First Degree.   In that case the petitioner used a handgun to shoot another victim in the face.

FN2. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN2. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

White, Gary J., Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., J.s