Opinion
UWYCR100390174T
09-27-2016
State of Connecticut v. Patrick Cannon #3760587
Filed October 25, 2016
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Patrick Cannon, petitioner, was convicted after trial before a three-judge panel (Cremins, J., Crawford, J., Agati, J.) of Murder and Tampering with Physical Evidence. He received the maximum sentence for those crimes: sixty-five years to serve. It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
The incident for which the petitioner stands convicted involves the murder of his wife in the Town of Wolcott. The victim was beaten with a heavy blunt object on the top of her skull and was stabbed twice. The defendant killed the victim in the home they shared while their two young children were asleep in an upstairs bedroom. His defense of extreme emotional disturbance was rejected by the three-judge panel. The panel found evidence of premeditation by the defendant, and commented on the substantial steps he took to cover up the crime. See State v. Cannon, 165 Conn.App. 324, 138 A.3d 1139 (2016), cert. denied, 321 Conn. 924, 138 A.3d 285 (2016).
At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was suffering from an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the crimes, and that " stressors" in his home life had resulted in these crimes being committed " in the heat of the moment." Counsel for the petitioner noted his lack of a prior record and service in the military, as well as the petitioner's work history, in arguing for a reduced sentence.
Counsel for the State noted that the defense of extreme emotional disturbance was exhaustively addressed by the three-judge panel in a written decision, and argued that the defense was appropriately rejected by the Court. The State also read from letters submitted by the victim's daughter and sister describing the devastating impact these crimes have had on their lives.
The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record in a thorough manner and took into consideration the nature of the offense and the petitioner's lack of a prior record. The court noted, however, that the petitioner " extinguished a life for no reason" and that the petitioner's actions after the murder " were calculated to disrupt the investigation to the greatest extent possible." (Transcript at page 31.)
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in the 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 sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq. and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the court in this case.
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.
The sentence is AFFIRMED .
Vitale, J., Alexander, J., and Ginocchio, J., participated in this decision.