State of Connecticut v. 322417 (2016)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Michael Pires, Sr.

He was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Murder and on October 13, 2006, he was sentenced by the Honorable Stuart Schimelman to a total effective sentence of 60 years to serve.

The incident underlying the conviction took place in Norwich, Connecticut on June 27, 2004.  The petitioner's son and the victim discussed the purchase of drugs, which turned into an argument when the victim offered to pay for the drugs with a check.  The petitioner's son rejected the offer and refused to provide the victim with any drugs.  The argument eventually escalated into an altercation at which point the petitioner and five others brutally beat the victim to death.  See State v. Michael D. Pires, Sr., 310 Conn.App. 222 (2013).

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the sixty-year sentence imposed by the court was inappropriate and disproportionate.  The thrust of counsel's argument for a reduced sentence was that although the petitioner was one of six involved in this murder his sentence was substantially greater than the others.  The codefendants all testified at trial and gave conflicting accounts as to who did what to the victim.  Counsel for the petitioner argued that it was obvious that the codefendants were protecting each other and there was a concerted effort to place blame on the petitioner.  The damaging testimony of the codefendants not only led to the petitioner's murder conviction but also the substantial sentence he received despite the lack of forensic evidence linking him to the crime scene.  Counsel concluded that the petitioner's sentence should be reduced substantially and that at the time of the offense the victim was 49 years old with no previous criminal record.

Counsel for the state argued that the sentence imposed by the court was fair and appropriate.  That this was a tragic and brutal murder.  The record reveals that the petitioner was one of two adults at the scene whereas the others ranged in ages from 15 to 21 years old.  He not only did not intervene to stop it, he was an active participant.  (Transcript pp. 10–12.)  Also there was testimony at the trial where the petitioner's son testified that he was instructed by his father to hit the victim with a dumbbell weight;  there was also testimony that at some point during the altercation the petitioner was observed pounding nails into the victim's head.  After the murder the petitioner lied to the police.  The sentencing court also noted that the petitioner had no remorse for his actions.  (Transcript pp. 36–38.)

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 in this case.  In this case, the Division finds that the sentencing court took into consideration the heinous nature of the crime, the complete background of the petitioner and imposed a sentence that was 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 Connecticut Practice Book Section 43–23.

The sentence is affirmed.

James P. Ginocchio, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

Maria Arauljo Kahn, Judge

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

Ginocchio, James P., Alexander, Joan K., Kahn, Maria Arauljo, J.s