State of Connecticut v. 371400 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Kadeem Sadio, petitioner, was found in violation of probation, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–32.   The petitioner had been on probation for the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the Second Degree and had received a sentence of seven years execution suspended after thirty months to serve with a period of three years probation.   The court sentenced the petitioner to fifty-four months to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.¹

The petitioner violated his probation by testing positive for illegal substances, failing to report for appointments, leaving the State without permission, and new criminal conduct.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was inappropriate because the petitioner was not prosecuted on many of the new criminal charges.   Counsel requested that a two-year sentence be imposed.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the petitioner was not amenable to rehabilitation based on the numerous incidents of noncompliance with probation.   The sentencing court took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the original offense.   The sentencing court found that probation “has done nothing for [the petitioner] and it is a terrible waste.”  (Transcript at page 70.)

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 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 Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statute § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as well as the petitioner's background, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

Ginocchio, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The application was not filed within the time requirements for sentence review;  however, the Division permitted this exception due to the extenuating circumstances described by counsel..  FN1. The application was not filed within the time requirements for sentence review;  however, the Division permitted this exception due to the extenuating circumstances described by counsel.

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