State of Connecticut v. 307495 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is David Terwilliger.   He was convicted after trial of Manslaughter 1st (with/firearm) at which time he received a sentence of 30 years suspended after 15 years followed by 10 years probation.   The matter was then reversed on appeal and remanded for a new trial.   The petitioner was convicted once again and he received a sentence of 20 years followed by 10 years special parole.

The facts underlying the convictions are as follows:  On January 5, 2003 Donald Kennedy, the victim, went to the home of his mother in law, Beverly Daniels and her husband, the offender.   The offender was a former marine.   Kennedy had previously lived at that home, but moved out weeks earlier.   Kennedy's ex-wife and their children continued to live at the house with the ex-wife's mother, Beverly Daniels.   According to neighbors, Kennedy was drunk and angry over a fight between a neighbor and Kennedy's son which prompted a heated argument between Kennedy and the neighbor.   The offender went outside, along with other family members, to see what was happening.   Kennedy was known to have an explosive temper and often carried a knife.

The offender twice asked Kennedy to leave and instead Kennedy pushed the offender.   The offender then kicked the victim in the groin which he claims had no effect on the victim.   At that point the offender pulled out a gun and ordered Kennedy off his property and said he was going to call the police.   The offender claims that the victim then blocked him from calling the police and threatened him and other family members.   The offender also claims that the victim lunged for his throat which caused the offender to shoot him.   Neighbors who were witnesses then took the offender's jacket and gun, the offender was arrested without incident.   The victim, Kennedy, was found with a knife in his pocket and a .15 blood alcohol level.

The petitioner claims that his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner argues that he is now 71 years old, he has been incarcerated for 8 and a half years and has been a model prisoner except for one disciplinary ticket back in 2005.   He has no criminal history.   The petitioner claims he feels remorse for the victim's family for this tragic incident, however he still maintains that his actions were justifiable.

The state argues that the petitioner is a man who essentially kicked and then shot another human being.   He is a person who demonstrates no remorse for actions and claims that if he lived in Florida he would have been vindicated.   He maintains this position despite his own admission that a simple phone call could have resolved this matter.   Instead he took matters into his own hands and was responsible for the death of another human being who is greatly missed by his loved ones.

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 trial court after the petitioner's second conviction.   The petitioner still maintains that his actions were justifiable and continues to demonstrate a lack of remorse.   The sentencing court rightfully commented on the fact that after two juries heard all the evidence they both came to the same conclusion that there was no justification for the death of Donald Kennedy.   In the pre-sentence investigation prepared for the petitioner's second sentencing the petitioner stated that he deserved to get what he got and the court was justified in restructuring the defendant's sentence based on a review of the entire record.

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. J.s