Opinion
No. UWY CR07-359676
August 24, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Frank McGee, was convicted by a jury of two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, one count of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the Second Degree, one count of Sexual Assault in the Fourth Degree, and one count of Breach of Peace in the Second Degree. The trial court punished the petitioner for the commission of these crimes by imposing a total effective sentence of 20 years of incarceration.
General Statutes Section 53a-135(a)(1)/(a)(2). This offense carries a maximum period of 10 years of incarceration.
See General Statutes Sections 53a-48/53a-135(a)(2). This offense carries a maximum period of 10 years of incarceration.
See General Statutes Section 53a-73a(a)(2). This offense carries a maximum period of one year of incarceration.
See General Statutes Section 53a-181(a)(3). This offense carries a maximum of sixth months of incarceration.
The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows. The Waterbury police received a report of a robbery on March 23, 2007 at 1:28 a.m. The victims, a man and a woman, complained that the petitioner threatened them with a handgun, riffled through the man's pockets and grabbed the woman's breasts. They also reported that while he was committing these crimes, the petitioner was accompanied by two other men. After the three assailants left the area in their automobile the police arrived and subsequently were able to locate them. The victims positively identified all three men as the persons who were involved.
The petitioner argues that his sentence is "inappropriate" and "disproportionate" pursuant to the criteria established in Practice Book Section 43-28 because the victims were not truly "innocent," but were in the area for the purpose of buying drugs at the time of the incident. He also asserts that no gun was ever involved in the crime and that none was ever found. Finally, the petitioner claims that he has made a strong effort to improve himself while in prison by getting his GED and involving himself in substance abuse treatment programs.
Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall "determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended."
The state strenuously opposes any downward modification in the petitioner's sentence. It points out that the petitioner has an atrocious criminal record, including multiple convictions for robbery. The state also argues that the petitioner has spent most of his adult life going in and out of prison, has a poor work record, has failed to support or have contact with his only child and has repeatedly failed to avail himself of drug treatment when he has been offered help for his addiction.
The Division has carefully considered the parties' respective arguments and reviewed all the relevant materials submitted in connection with the sentence review application, including the sentencing transcript. It is apparent that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court imposed a sentence that was both appropriate and proportionate. The petitioner has made a living by committing robberies, has eschewed the opportunity for drug treatment and has failed to accept responsibility for his crimes or demonstrate genuine remorse for his misconduct. The sentencing court gave the petitioner ample consideration regarding his claims that the victims did not have "clean hands" and that no handgun was ever recovered. The trial court imposed a sentence that was eminently fair and there is no good reason to reduce it.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
White, J., Iannotti, J. and O'Keefe, J. participated in this decision.