State v. Bowens

Full title: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. TYREESE BOWENS

Court: Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven

Date published: Sep 12, 2003

2003 Ct. Sup. 10805 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)

Opinion

No. CR96-436046

September 12, 2003

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

MIANO, HOLDEN, IANNOTTI, JUDGES.

Tyreese Bowens, petitioner, was convicted by a jury of the crime of Murder, a violation of General Statutes Sec. 53a-54a, which provides a penalty of not less than 25 years incarceration up to life imprisonment (60 years). The record reflects the following factual basis for the conviction. The victim had pulled his vehicle in front of the convenience store, gone into the store for a purchase and returned to the vehicle. At the time of the incident the victim was conversing with a female passenger. At this time the suspect came up to the vehicle, walked behind the vehicle, then looked inside briefly before approaching the driver's side window. Once at that location, the perpetrator pulled a handgun from his waistband and began firing at the victim from point blank range. The victim died of multiple gunshot wounds. The petitioner was convicted of the murder.

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 a sentence except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statute §§ 51-194 et seq.

The petitioner was convicted by a jury of the senseless murder of another human being. Although the petitioner claims his innocence that consideration is not within our purview. The sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor 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.

Miano, J.

Holden, J.

Iannotti, J.

Miano, J., Holden, J., and Iannotti, J. participated in this decision.