Opinion
No. CR05-220383
June 24, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner in this matter is Steven Nelson. A jury convicted him of committing Robbery in the First Degree and he was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. The petitioner appealed his conviction, but the trial court's judgment was affirmed. See State v. Nelson, 105 Conn.App 393 (2008). The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are detailed in the Appellate Court's decision, but for purposes of this opinion, it is sufficient to state them as follows.
See General Statutes Section 53a-134(a)(1). This offense is punishable by a maximum of twenty years in prison.
The petitioner and an accomplice, while armed and wearing masks, broke into the victim's apartment and proceeded to bind him, assault him with a knife and steal his cash and other personal property. The perpetrators then forced the victim into his own automobile and drove him to various locations where they believed he could obtain additional cash. During the course of the abduction, the petitioner and his companion repeatedly beat and threatened to kill the victim. Eventually, the assailants untied the victim, left him badly injured in his vehicle and departed in a separate car. At that time, the victim was badly hurt and in need of medical attention. He had a cell phone with him and managed to call the police. After the police arrived, the victim was taken to get medical treatment and was able to identify the petitioner. The petitioner was subsequently arrested for robbing the victim.
The petitioner asks the Division to reduce his prison sentence, claiming that it is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28. He asserts that he was a "minor" actor in the criminal conduct alleged, apologizes for his conduct and promises to make restitution to the victim. He also claims that his conduct did not stem from any genuine criminal intent, but rather from his "immaturity."
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 reduction in the petitioner's sentence. It argues that the sentence should not be reduced because the petitioner has multiple felony convictions and the crime at issue involved an extreme level of violence. It further asserts that the petitioner committed the crime simply because he made his living by robbing people, not because he had to finance a drug habit or because he was immature.
The Division has carefully considered the parties' claims and finds that there is no persuasive reason to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court. The petitioner's conduct in this case was cruel, violent and menacing. There is nothing in the circumstances of the offense or his background that is mitigating. He is clearly a danger to the community and merits the punishment he received. The sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43-28.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.