State of Connecticut v. Scott Cancel

Reset A A Font size: Print

Superior Court of Connecticut.

State of Connecticut v. Scott Cancel

HHB CR01 13510

Decided: November 22, 2011

SENTENCE AFFIRMED BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner is Scott Cancel.   He was convicted by a jury of Murder as an Accessory in violation of Connecticut General Statute 53a–54/53a–8 with a penalty of up to sixty years to serve.   The court sentenced the petitioner to sixty years to serve.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   The petitioner directed two friends of his to murder Robert Schmidt.   The victim was 26 years old.   The petitioner proceeded to pay his two friends to murder Robert Schmidt.   The victim was strangled and his body was found in a snow bank.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   He argues he has a limited criminal record.   He is a successful business man and the father of seven children.   The petitioner requests a sentence substantially lower than sixty years.

The state argues the victim's family has suffered terribly.   The petitioner was the main player in ordering this murder.   He gave the murderers money to carry this out.   Petitioner arranged for the murder to happen and without his involvement the victim would be alive.

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 Statute § 51–194 et seq.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   The petitioner paid for and ordered the murder of a 26–year–old man.   The trial court's sentence is appropriate.

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.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary White, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

Fischer, White, and Alexander, J's. participated in this decision.

Fischer, Brian T., White, Gary, Alexander, Joan K., Js.