Opinion
No. CR97-514778
March 20, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Daniel Santiago, was convicted after a jury trial of Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm, in violation of C.G.S. 53a-55a and received 40 years incarceration (5 years mm) The petitioner was also convicted of Assault in the First Degree, in violation of C.G.S. 53a-59(a)(1), and received 20 years incarceration (5 years mm) consecutive to the previous count. The total effective sentence is 60 years incarceration (10 years mm). It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.
The petitioner was sentenced to 5 years consecutive by way of C.G.S. 53-202k. This is the enhancement penalty when convicted of an A, B or C felony with a firearm. This sentence was vacated on July 26, 2000.
On November 26, 1997 at approximately 9:06 p.m. Hartford Police went to Wadsworth Street on the report of a shooting. Two victims were found with gunshot wounds. One who had been shot in the calf reported that a person known as "Danger" approached him, pulled out a handgun and shot at both victims. When the second victim fled, he was shot in the calf.
The second victim was treated and released, the first victim expired from the wounds to his stomach. The offender was identified as someone named Daniel and the petitioner was later arrested.
Petitioner's counsel argues the sentence is disproportionate to other sentences of a like kind. In support of this premise, counsel submits a supporting memorandum. Exhibit two puts forth the mean and median sentences for manslaughter with a firearm. The mean sentence is 21 years with the median sentence being 18.5 years. Counsel claims the petitioner's sentence of 60 years is clearly disproportionate in light of these statistics.
Counsel acknowledges in her argument for 231 manslaughters, 55 had sentences in excess of 25 years. Only 6 of those sentences entailed other charges which resulted in consecutive time. Counsel believes this further bolsters her claim the sentence was disproportionate.
Lastly, counsel agrees the petitioner confessed three days after the offense. Counsel asserts as part of this claim her client was functionally illiterate. He was selling drugs and an argument ensued over money. He has always maintained the shooting was in self-defense.
The petitioner addressed the Division and apologized.
Counsel for the state argues a drug dealer has a right to live. The victim witness of the assaults testified he and the decedent did not have guns. The decedent was shot in the back.
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 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 the Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
Counsel's claim that the sentence was disproportionate based upon the statistics referred to was well argued. However, the study does not take into account all the facts and circumstances of the case as considered by the sentencing court. The court heard the testimony of all the witnesses including the victim/witness of the case. The study presented by counsel is solely based upon statistics without knowing or factoring the differences in each case. Even though this sentence is higher than the median manslaughter with a firearm case referred to, that does not render this sentence disproportionate to all manslaughter with a firearm sentences. Every case and each sentence must be considered individually. The sentencing court in the petitioner's case did exactly that and rendered a fair and appropriate disposition.
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 et seq.
The sentence imposed was neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.