State of Connecticut v. 367174 (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Dashawn Revels.   He was convicted by a jury of the charge of murder and on September 23, 2011, he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 55 years.

The facts are as follows:  On March 31, 2009, at approximately 11 p.m., New London police responded to a report of shots fired.   A male victim with several gunshot wounds expired and the handgun was found nearby.   Several males were seen running and the shooter was described by a witness.   Investigation revealed the offender as the shooter and he was identified in person by the witness.   Eventually the offender confessed to shooting the victim and stated that they argued and that the victim pulled out a gun and fired at him first, he then shot back and the victim fell.   The offender fled and threw the gun away.   Police could not locate the gun.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was innocent.   He described a litany of evidentiary issues that suggested his client was wrongfully convicted.   In the alternative, counsel for the petitioner argued the sentence of fifty-five years should be reduced.   He argued that the petitioner was only twenty years old at the time of the offense, he came from a good family, he was respectful and polite and did not have a criminal record.

Counsel for the state reminded the Division that despite counsel for the petitioner's claim that the defendant was wrongfully accused, there did come a point during the investigation when the defendant did admit that he had a gun and he shot at the victim.   Counsel for the state argued that it was unclear as to what exactly happened, as to what caused the shooting.   Whether it was an argument or just a random shooting, it appears to be clear that there was no reason for this to have happened, it was a violent crime.   Unfortunately, guns are epidemic on the streets in the hands of people that commit these types of crimes.   The State argued that the sentence should not be reduced.

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.

Although the counsel for petitioner claims that the petitioner was wrongfully convicted there did come a point when the petitioner admitted to the shooting, however, he claimed it was because he was being shot at by the victim.   At trial, the court did give the jury the appropriate charge on self- defense.   The jury having heard all the evidence elected not to accept this defense and found the petitioner guilty of murder which carries a maximum penalty of sixty years.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the court in this case.

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 Section 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