DocketNumber: No. CR95-142615
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16999
Judges: KLACZAK, JUDGE. NORKO, JUDGE. O'KEEFE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/26/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Application for review of sentence imposed by the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford.
Docket No. CR95-142615
Thomas Farver Defense counsel, for Petitioner.
Victor Carlucci, Jr. Assistant State's Attorney, for the State. CT Page 17000
The underlying facts are reported in State v. Dwyer,
On March 21, 1995, the defendant entered a Glastonbury convenience store, wearing a disguise and displaying a firearm. He announced to the employee on duty that he was conducting a "stickup" and requested all the money from the cash register. The employee refused to cooperate and instead telephoned the Glastonbury police department. The defendant then drove away at a normal rate of speed in a vehicle that had a bag partially obscuring the rear license plate. The defendant was apprehended a short while later by Glastonbury police officers and charged with attempt to commit robbery.
At the time of the incident, the defendant was a Hartford police officer who was not assigned to active duty because he was receiving his full salary as a result of a workers' compensation claim.
The petitioner, who has no prior record, was unsuccessful in his defense that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit armed robbery due to the ingestion of alcohol and medications.
In asking for a sentence modification, Dwyer claims he "wasn't himself" at the time, has no recollection of the crime and had mental health issues (depression was diagnosed). He also points out that because he was a police officer he is unsafe in general prison population and is held in a special maximum security unit for his protection.
Section
While he has no prior convictions, Dwyer's personal life was close to being in shambles. He had money problems, was increasingly drinking, had been arrested for breach of peace in 1994, and a DWI arrest while this case was pending.
He committed an egregious crime, putting a loaded gun to the ribs of the victim.
The conclusion this Division reaches is that the sentence imposed was thoughtfully considered by the sentencing court. It weighed all the circumstances and imposed a sentence well within the parameters of its reasonable discretion.
It is a reasonable, appropriate and proportionate sentence under the circumstances. It is affirmed.
Klaczak, Norko and O'Keefe, J.s. participated in this decision.