Opinion
FBTCR14279715
03-27-2018
STATE of Connecticut v. Jacqui SMITH #345941
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Williams, J.
Petitioner Jacqui Smith was convicted after jury trial of Criminal Possession of a Firearm in violation of § 53a-217(a)(1) of the General Statutes (with a penalty of up to ten years of imprisonment, two years of which is mandatory by law), Weapon in a Motor Vehicle in violation of § 29-38(a) of the General Statutes (with a penalty of up to five years of imprisonment), and Carrying a Pistol or Revolver Without a Permit in violation of § 29-35 of the General Statutes (with a penalty of up to five years of imprisonment, one year of which is mandatory by law). Of the twenty years of exposure, the trial court (Kavanewsky, J.) imposed a sentence of ten years to serve (two years of which were mandatory) consecutive to a sentence the defendant was serving at the time of trial.
Petitioner now seeks review of that ten-year jail sentence.
The incident for which the petitioner stands convicted involved his possession of a pistol with the alleged intent " to settle the score" with another individual. Presentence Investigation (hereinafter PSI) at 3; see Sentencing Transcript (9/9/16) (hereinafter Tr.) at 8. Due to the timely action of an individual who intervened to maintain the peace and an eyewitness who called police, nobody suffered physical injury as a result of this incident. PSI at 3.
At the time of Petitioner’s arrest for the conduct in question, he was on parole for a prior felony conviction; Tr., at 7; having discharged from his previous jail sentence a mere seven months earlier. Tr. at 5. Simultaneously, the petitioner was on probation at the time of arrest and was exposed to seven years of incarceration in the event of its violation. PSI at 5-6. Petitioner was found in violation of his probation after a hearing; see State v. Smith, 178 Conn.App. 715 (2017); and received a five-year jail sentence which he was serving at the time that the presently-challenged sentence was imposed. Tr. at 4; PSI at 6. The challenged sentence was imposed as a result of the petitioner being convicted after a trial by jury. During imposition of the challenged sentence, the sentencing court noted that " the community needs to be protected and I can start with trying to protect them from Mr. Smith." Tr. at 9. The sentencing court also reasoned that the petitioner failed to make use of substance abuse opportunities and that he had violated every previous term of probation that had been afforded to him as an alternative to incarceration. Tr. at 7. Although the petitioner has had some prior success in substance abuse treatment, he missed four intake appointments after his most recent arrest and was discharged from treatment for his noncompliance. PSI at 9.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed concurrent terms of incarceration with a total effective jail sentence of ten years to serve (two years of which were mandatory by law), ordered to run consecutive to the period of incarceration the petitioner already was serving for his violation of probation.
The petitioner has suffered tragedy such as the loss of a child; PSI at 7; but intervention by one or two individuals in the incident that led to the challenged sentence might have prevented further tragedy as to the petitioner and as to others within the community, and as a result such intervention also might have spared the petitioner a much greater sentence than the one now challenged.
At the hearing before the review division the petitioner asserted his innocence, but the review division’s scope of review is set forth in § 43-28 of the Practice Book. Pursuant to § 54-196 of the General Statutes, and after careful consideration, the review division finds that the sentence challenged by petitioner is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate, and that it should stand.
For the foregoing reasons, the sentence is AFFIRMED.
Omar A. Williams, J., Elpedio N. Vitale, J., and Kevin C. Doyle, J. participated in this decision.