Opinion
No. H14H CR03-569925.
November 29, 2006.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Abdul Peay, was convicted by jury verdict of two counts of Burglary in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-101(a)(1), each carries a penalty up to twenty years incarceration, the Burglary carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, and one count of Assault in the Second Degree, a violation of 53a-60(a)(2), which carries a penalty up to five years incarceration, and one count of interfering with a Police Officer, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-167a(a), which carries a penalty up to one year incarceration. The court imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years incarceration (five years mandatory minimum). It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.
On April 17, 2003, Hartford Police were dispatched to 18 Niles Street on a report of a fight. Upon arrival, police observed several parties attempting to hold down a black male later identified as Abdul Peay. A witness informed police that Abdul Peay attempted to break into several washers and dryers in the laundry room. Police secured Abdul Peay in the rear of the police cruiser. The victim, who identified himself as the superintendent of the building, stated that Abdul Peay was attempting to open the coin collection container with a metal crowbar and screwdriver. As the victim questioned his actions, Mr. Peay began to approach him with a crowbar in a threatening manner. The victim stated that "he attempted to grab me." He struck the superintendent several times in the head with a crowbar forcing him to loose hold of Mr. Peay. The victim was able to follow him up the stairs towards the front door where a physical altercation began between them. The victim related that Mr. Peay was able to spin him around and throw him into the front glass window of the building causing such to break. As the two continued to fight, Mr. Peay was able to force his way outside of the building as the victim continued to hold onto him. At this time, a witness and other residents of the building were able to come to the victim's aid securing Mr. Peay. The victim and witnesses stated that Mr. Peay swung the crowbar wildly at all parties involved in an attempt to escape. The victim stated that he was struck several times in the head area and other parts of his body with the crowbar.
Counsel for the petitioner indicated there are two counts of burglary, but, in fact, this was one incident. This began as a burglary in the third degree, but escalated when the petitioner was confronted by the victim. The victim who was the building superintendent initiated the physical contact. Counsel claims his client was attempting to steal coins from the washing machines when he was confronted by the victim. He had a good job at the time of the offense. The victim's injuries were not serious.
The petitioner addressed the Division and stated he has made a lot of mistakes in his life. "I worked from approximately 1999 without any problems until August 24, 2002, when I was laid off from my employment. I accept responsibilities for my mistakes."
The state countered by referring to the petitioner's lengthy criminal record. The victim was struck several times in the head. There is nothing that has deterred the petitioner from a life of crime. He is a career criminal.
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.
The court, at sentencing, referred to the positive attributes of the petitioner. The court did, however, state that society was in need of protection from the petitioner. The petitioner's record dates back to 1974. It is replete with both felonies and misdemeanors. There are a number of convictions for crimes of violence including burglaries. This offense did not begin as a particularly serious crime, but the assault upon the victim compounded an already bad situation. The court properly took this and his criminal history into consideration.
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