Skip to main content

State of Connecticut v. 218810

Reset A A Font size: Print

Superior Court of Connecticut.

State of Connecticut v. Bryan Jordan # 218810


Decided: February 06, 2014


Bryan Jordan, petitioner, was found guilty after a trial to a jury of Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–55a, with a penalty of not less than five to forty years, and Carrying a Pistol without a Permit, in violation of General Statutes § 29–35(a), with a penalty of not less than one to five years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of forty-five years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted was a gun-related death.   The petitioner and the victim had been in an argument and the petitioner returned at a later time and shot the victim in the back of the head.   See, State v. Jordan, 117 Conn.App. 160 (2009).

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner indicated that the sentence was “inappropriate” and “disproportionate.”   Counsel submitted a chart of judicial department statistics of similar offenses to demonstrate that the petitioner's sentence should be reduced.   Counsel requested that the Division impose a total effective sentence of thirty-five years to serve.   The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that he received no consideration in his sentence from the trial court and that he should have received some mitigation in his sentencing.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division and spoke of the petitioner's criminal history as well as the actions surrounding the incident.   The State described the shooting as a “cold-blooded killing” and how the petitioner fled to Georgia after the crime.   The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, his criminal history, and the nature of offense.   The court indicated that the conduct was “profoundly criminal” (Transcript at page 38) and found the petitioner to be “incorrigible.”  (Transcript at page 40.)

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 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.”  Practice Book § 43–28.   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the serious nature of the instant offense, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, Joan K., J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

Arthur C. Hadden, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Hadden, Arthur C., Js.

Copied to clipboard