State of Connecticut v. 352178 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is John Thomas.   On March 10, 2006, the petitioner entered Alford pleas to five (5) counts of robbery in the first degree.   The pleas were entered pursuant to a sentencing offer of 20 years effectively served after 12 years, with the right to argue for less with a floor of 6 years, followed by 5 years probation.   On May 30, 2008, the petitioner was sentenced to 20 years, suspended after 9 years, followed by 5 years probation.

The facts surrounding the convictions were as follows:  The petitioner along with other co- defendants participated in a robbery spree that spanned five separate dates in the summer of 2007.   During the commission of most of these robberies weapons were displayed and/or used, and victims were injured.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner should have the incarcerated period of his sentence reduced to time served.   Counsel argued that at the time of the commissions of these robberies the petitioner was an immature 18–year–old with no adult criminal history.   That during his time in the prison system the petitioner has gained great insight into his past behavior, has matured and has excelled as a student taking advantage of the many programs that were offered by the corrections facility.

The State argues that the petitioner sentence should be affirmed.   That the petitioner entered into a plea agreement that was extremely fair in light of the fact that he pled guilty to five separate robbery 1st counts which included weapons, violence and injuries.   Moreover, the state notes that the petitioner was given consideration at his sentencing.   He did not receive the maximum sentence permitted within the parameters of the plea agreement.   Instead the petitioner received a sentence of 20 years suspended after 9 years, followed by 5 years probation.

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 set seq. and Connecticut General Statues § 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 pled guilty to five serious felony counts, he was the subject of a thorough and comprehensive pre-sentence investigation which highlighted the petitioner's accomplishments and good character.   He was well-represented at the time of his sentencing, he received leniency from the sentencing court.   Although the Division lauds the accomplishments the petitioner has achieved during his incarceration, the Division finds that the petitioner has received fair treatment.

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