Opinion
No. CR96-425927
May 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
James D. Strong, petitioner, was found guilty after trial by jury of the crimes of Murder a violation of General Statutes Sec. 53a-54 which provides a mandatory minimum sentence of not less than 25 years incarceration and no more than life (60 years incarceration) and Felony Murder. The crime of Felony Murder merges into the crime of Murder. The sentencing court imposed a sentence of 60 years, the maximum sentence allowed by statute. This is the sentence the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
The record before us, taken from State v. Strong, 59 Conn. App. 620, 621-23, reveals that the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant was the step grandson of the 72-year-old murder victim. The victim was found by police on February 21, 1996, in his home lying on his back on the living room floor. The victim had blood on his face and clothes, and a woman's coat was tied around his neck. The police observed that the downstairs was in disarray. The victim's empty wallet was found lying on an ottoman in the living room, and credit cards were scattered about the room. The upstairs portion of the residence was in similar condition, and several valuables were missing.
On February 22, 1996, the petitioner gave a voluntary statement to the police and admitted, in relevant part, that on several occasions on February 20, 1996 when the victim was not at home the petitioner broke into the home and stole various articles. On the second entry the victim returned home while the petitioner was still inside. According to the petitioner, when he heard the victim return to the house he ran down the stairs and shoved the victim from behind, causing the victim to be knocked on the floor in the living room. The associate medical examiner who conducted the autopsy on the victim concluded that the victim had three separate abrasions on his forehead, three separate hemorrhages on his scalp, a cut over his eye, a bruise on his lower lip and a number of loose teeth that were ready to fall out. According to the medical examiner these injuries were consistent with having endured a fight or struggle and would not likely be caused by a fall.
At the hearing before the Division counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner continued using drugs at the time of the incident. At the time of trial, indicated counsel, the petitioner was in his late 30s and will be confined until he is 94 or 95 years of age. Counsel suggested a reduction with a period of probation.
The petitioner addressed the Division. Petitioner represented that he was on drugs at the time of the incident and he is truly remorseful over what took place. Petitioner claims the incident was an accident wherein he was just trying to obtain monies to maintain his drug habit. Petitioner further indicated that since the incident he has had ample time to dwell on it and he is attempting to solve his problem.
The assistant state's attorney countered that the 72-year-old victim was strangled. Counsel indicated that petitioner's record goes back to 1982. Counsel indicated that probation characterized the petitioner as a "threat to society." Counsel for the state concluded by noting the case was "remarkable for its brutality."
A review of the Pre-Sentence Investigation reveals that petitioner's criminal history is comprised of such felonies as Robbery in the Second Degree (two), Assault Second on a Person over 60, Burglary in the Third Degree (at least two) and various larceny type misdemeanors.
It is noteworthy that the petitioner continued to use cocaine and "left programs against advice and in violation of his parole."
The trial court in its sentencing remarks commented, in relevant part:
So this was a difficult case to sit through because the victim was such a good man. He died in a horrible way, at the hands of a relative. It was brutal. It was cruel. He probably knew what was happening to him. The sadness of the event is just overwhelming.
The evidence was conclusive. It was beyond conclusive . . .
Everyone described the victim as a kind and gentle person, who never hurt anyone. He did not deserve this. The person who did this to him has to be punished in the severest fashion possible.
(Transcript, September 18, 1998, pages 5-6.)
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.
Taking into consideration the violent and horrendous nature of the crime, the criminal history of the petitioner and the lack of any expression of accountability, 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 Connecticut 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.