Opinion
No. CR04 199832
June 1, 2010
SENTENCE AFFIRMED
By the Division
The petitioner, Keenan Corley, was convicted after a jury trial of Robbery in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-134(a)(2), Assault in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-59(a)(5), and sentenced to fifteen years incarceration, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-48 and 53a-134(a)(2), and sentenced to 15 years incarceration followed by five years special parole, and Carrying a Pistol Without a Permit, a violation of C.G.S. § 29-35(a), and sentenced to five years incarceration, consecutive to count three. Count two runs concurrently with counts three and four. The total effective sentence imposed is twenty years incarceration, followed by five years special parole. It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.
This count was reversed by the Appellate Court in State v. Corley, 106 Conn.App. 682 (2008), and was nolled by the state on October 23, 2008.
C.G.S. 53a-134(a)(2) carries a five-year mandatory minimum.
C.G.S. 29-35(a) carries a one-year mandatory minimum.
The following facts are relevant to the petitioner's hearing.
On April 23, 2004 Bridgeport Police went to the Guyama Market on Orchard Street on the report of a robbery and shooting. The owner of the market was able to describe the robbers who were wearing ski masks and held a gun to the clerk's head. Two nearby men gave chase to the robbers as they fled. The robbers shot a male who was just arriving and parking in front of the store as the robbers were running out of the store. They fired into his car and struck him in the shoulder. The robbers then got into an Acura and shot out the window as they drove away, a witness was able to describe the car and provide a partial plate.
The store clerk was able to identify the defendant from a photo array and knows him from his presence often at the store. Defendant was identified through investigation and arrested in June 2004.
The defendant was found guilty after a jury trial. See also State v. Corley, 106 Conn.App 682, reversed in part (2008).
Counsel for the petitioner argues the sentencing court did not have all the evidence. Counsel asks the sentence be reduced to ten years.
The state informed the Division that the sentencing court articulated the reasons for the sentence. The petitioner was on probation at the time of the offense.
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 petitioner was only twenty years old at the time of the offense. However, he already had several felony convictions and was on probation at the time of the offense. The petitioner has denied all involvement and refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions.
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.
WHITE, J.
ALEXANDER, J.
Iannotti, J., White, J., and Alexander, J. participated in this decision.