Opinion
No. CR 98-464318
September 25, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts that the jury reasonably could have found.
See State v. Griffin, 273 Conn. 266, 268-69 (2005).
At or around 2 P.M. on January 29, 1998, Denard Lester, accompanied by the defendant, robbed the eighteen-year-old victim, Tyshan Allbrooks, in New Haven. Lester took from the victim what witnesses described as a necklace or a medallion made of gold. The victim immediately went to a friend's nearby house, reported the incident to the police and, during an interview, provided a statement to the police who had responded to her complaint. After the robbery, the defendant, Lester and Tobias Greene were passengers in in automobile being operated by Paul Little. The defendant and Lester were fourteen years of age; Greene and Little were sixteen years of age.
The defendant is Cyrus Griffin, the petitioner herein.
A short time later, at or about 2:45 p.m., the victim was walking along Whalley Avenue in New Haven when she was seen by the defendant, who was in the automobile with his acquaintances and was aware that the victim had reported the robbery to the police. The defendant remarked that "snitches get stitches," got out of the automobile and chased the victim on foot. The victim ran [into] a convenience store where she asked an attendant to call for assistance. The defendant caught up to the victim, and shot her twice in the chest and four times in the back with his pistol, thereby causing her death. See State v. Griffin, 77 Conn.App. 424 (2003).
The petitioner was tried by a jury for the crimes of murder and other charges and said jury returned verdicts of guilty to the lesser included offense of Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm which provides for a penalty of not less than five years incarceration and not more than 40 years incarceration and Carrying a Pistol Without a Permit which provides for a maximum five years incarceration. The petitioner's maximum exposure was forty-five years incarceration.
The trial court imposed a net effective sentence on the manslaughter conviction of forty years incarceration execution suspended after 30 years incarceration and five years probation with a concurrent sentence on the pistol charge.
At the hearing before the Division counsel for the petitioner stressed that the primary issue is the petitioner's age at the time of the offense. Counsel relates that petitioner was fourteen (14) years of age at the time of the offense and that the sentencing court "did not appropriately take into account the (petitioner's) youth in imposing sentence," that the court should have appropriately given more weight to the factor of petitioner's tender age.
The record reveals that at sentencing counsel for petitioner gave an impassioned plea for mitigation outlining petitioner's family history and the conditions of neglect and abandonment experienced by petitioner and his home environment of drugs and violence during his formative years. Counsel provided exhibits to the sentencing court and a sentencing memorandum to assist the court in providing information, not as an excuse for petitioner's misbehavior, but as an explanation for his conduct.
Counsel highlighted in his comments the history of petitioner's misbehavior wherein it was clear the petitioner required "long term therapeutic residential placement . . ." and was continuously returned home to the environment that contributed to his misbehavior.
Likewise, before the Division, counsel put forward a strenuous argument in his client's behalf and provided the panel with a Brief in Support of Sentence Reduction dated May 22, 2007. The Division has reviewed the brief which, inter alia, provides the expert authority that "cognitive, psychosocial and neurobiological research all support the conclusion that the developmental immaturity of adolescents mitigates their criminal culpability and should moderate the severity of their punishment."
The Division is mindful of these studies and does not dispute the conclusions reached by the authorities provided.
The matter of Mr. Griffin is egregious for the nature of the extreme violence inflicted on a completely innocent person which caused her death and the resultant denial of participation by petitioner. It is often said, the first step toward rehabilitation is to candidly admit one's involvement. This petitioner did not do that.
The state's attorney and the probation department each recommended the maximum sentence (of 45 years incarceration) be imposed. The trial court did not impose the maximum sentence allowed by law perhaps because of the court's consideration of the petitioner's tender age at the time of the offense. This we cannot say with any degree of certainty. Substantial consideration was accorded the petitioner.
Despite the consideration given petitioner it is most difficult to accord anyone further consideration when in the face of considerable evidence they deny participation.
To the experienced trial bench the nature of the crime cries out for the maximum sentence after trial. The maximum exposure was 45 years incarceration and the court imposed an initial executed sentence of 30 years incarceration. In light of the egregious nature of the crime it is clear that the sentencing court did consider certain mitigating factors when imposing sentence.
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 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 Statute § 51-194, et seq.
Taking into consideration the egregious nature of the crime wherein a young woman's life was needlessly and violently taken, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate and nor disproportionate.
In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.
SENTENCE: AFFIRMED