Opinion
No. CR1-102694
April 27, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Leroy Gettes, seeks review of the 60-year sentence imposed from the judgment of conviction rendered after a jury trial of Felony Murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, Attempted Robbery in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-134(a)(2), and Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Robbery in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134(a)(2).
The court imposed a sentence of life (60 years) on the Felony Murder charge, 20 years on the Attempt to Commit Robbery, and 20 years on the Conspiracy to Commit Robbery. The sentences are to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the New York sentence. Total effective sentence is 60 years consecutive to any sentence now being served.
The following facts are gleaned from our appellate court decision as reported in 42 Conn.App. 472 (1996): In the afternoon of December 2, 1991, Minnie Henderson and Johnny Henderson, husband and wife, were working in their jewelry store in Stamford. At approximately 12:40 p.m., the defendant and Frederick Braithwaite entered the store. As Minnie Henderson approached the defendant, he broke through a gate connecting two display cases and forced her to the back of the store where her husband was sitting on a work bench. The defendant told the Hendersons to "get down." Minnie Henderson crawled into a bathroom, opened the window, and screamed for help. She then heard a series of gun shots. The defendant shot and killed Johnny Henderson during the course of the robbery.
Counsel for the petitioner urged the panel to afford the petitioner any relief he is entitled in light of the nature of the offense, the family support and criminal history of the petitioner.
Counsel for the state urges the panel to consider that this was a "cold hearted killing of a human being who was beloved by his family during a robbery in which the petitioner was seeking property owned by the victim. This crime shocked the city." Counsel urged the panel to affirm in conclusion.
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in its scope of 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 the Connecticut General Statutes § 51-195 et seq.
The sentencing court clearly considered the need to protect the public interest in the light of the nature of the offenses committed by the petitioner.
The record revealed the trial court stated: ". . . You're being sentenced because you shot to death a human being during the commission of a planned intentional robbery.
Also, I'm impressed by the fact that within days after this robbery, while the family of the victim was still grieving, you undertook to commit another robbery in Long Island in which you gratuitously beat an old man over the head with a gun." The court then imposed the sixty-year sentence.
This panel has carefully reviewed the record before us, and considered the arguments of both counsel and the petitioner's statements and find the sentence is neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Holden, J.
Miano, J.
Iannotti, J.
Holden, J., Miano, J., and Iannotti, J. participated in this decision.