Opinion
No. CR10-236528
November 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Nathan Dull, was convicted by a three-judge panel of the crime of Murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. He received a total effective sentence of 35 years.
The following facts are relevant to this case.
According to police reports from the City of Groton, on January 20, 1997, the body of a 21-year-old black male was found inside an apartment on Crouch Street in Groton. An autopsy performed on the body the following day, determined the cause of death to be homicide via multiple blows to the face and head by a blunt instrument. Through subsequent investigation, police learned that the apartment was leased to Nathan Dull. Upon questioning Dull and several acquaintances who had seen or spoken to him on the days and evenings in question, it was determined that Dull's statements as to his whereabouts on the days and evenings in question were inconsistent with the statements and phone records. Additionally, a search of Dull's vehicle revealed two white socks with blood stains on them. Finally, a plastic bag of bloody clothing, matching the description of Dull's attire on the day of the murder, were found in close proximity to Dull's residence. Dull was arrested via warrant on January 28, 1997.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the defense at trial was mental disease or defect. The three-judge panel convicted the petitioner and counsel indicates that even though the panel's sentence was in the mid-range, his client deserves it to be lowered.
The petitioner addressed the Division and informed the panel that in 1993 he went to Bethesda Medical where at first he was fifty percent mentally disabled and finally granted a one hundred percent disability. He voluntarily stopped taking his medications and began talking to himself. He wished he continued to take his medication.
The state agrees there was mental illness. The parameters of that illness were in dispute. The three-judge panel had the entire psychiatric history for their review. This was a brutal killing.
The victim's family addressed the Division. She does not believe the sentence should be reduced. He stayed the night at my house, the night before he killed my brother. My brother will never know his son or my two children.
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 Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and the Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
The three-judge panel unanimously found the petitioner to have intended to commit the murder. "This panel has considered rehabilitation, deterrence and punishment. However, we are mindful of the circumstances which brought [defendant and victim] together. This is a human tragedy for both families that is all too frequent in our society."
The panel clearly listened to all the relevant testimony, including all the medical testimony. They rejected the petitioner's claim of mental disease or defect. Regardless, they took all the facts and circumstances into their decision and rendered a fair and appropriate sentence to the petitioner.
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 § 43-23 et esq.
The sentence imposed was neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Ianotti, J.
Holden, J.
O'Keefe, J.
Iannotti, J., O'Keefe, J., and Holden, J. participated in this decision.