From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Morales

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
Feb 28, 2006
2006 Ct. Sup. 3965 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)

Opinion

No. CR96-245863

February 28, 2006


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION


William Morales, Jr., petitioner, was convicted by jury verdict of the crime of Murder, a violation of General Statutes Sec. 53a-54a, which provides for a penalty of not less than 25 years and up to a life sentence (defined statutorily as 60 years incarceration). The trial court imposed a net effective sentence of 52 ½ years to serve. It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis for the verdict is reported in State v. Morales, 71 Conn.App. 790, 792-93. The jury could have found the following facts, in part: In 1993, the petitioner's brother, Angel Resto, and the victim, Andrew J. Scott, were associated in a narcotics distribution business in the Waterbury area In 1994, the petitioner, who at the time was a 17-year-old student, became involved in the narcotics distribution business operated by Resto and Scott.

In October 1994, the petitioner and Resto heard rumors that when Scott previously had been arrested, he gave the police information concerning the drug dealers with whom he did business to receive more lenient treatment for himself. As a result, they became concerned that if Scott were arrested again, he would inform the police of their involvement in the narcotics distribution business. They decided that Scott had to be killed to prevent him from informing on them. Resto offered the petitioner $10,000 "to take care of" Scott. The petitioner agreed and obtained a .25 caliber semiautomatic pistol and ammunition for that purpose.

On October 17, 1994, Resto drove the petitioner to Scott's apartment. Scott admitted the petitioner into his apartment and after some conversation the petitioner asked to use the bathroom, and Scott said that he could. As the petitioner left the room, Scott went to the sink to wash dishes. While Scott's back was turned, the petitioner approached him and shot him in the back of his head about six inches to two feet away. Scott fell to the floor, and the petitioner proceeded to fire six more shots at him, emptying the pistol's magazine in the process. Scott died from his wounds.

At the hearing before the Division counsel for the petitioner focused upon the age of the petitioner at the time of the murder of Scott. Counsel opined that insufficient weight was given to petitioner's tender age in imposing such a substantial sentence. Counsel argued that 17 year olds are often times not as mature as adults and that this factor should have been given greater weight by the sentencing court.

Counsel argued that there is broad discretion in the sentencing court, from 25 years to 60 years incarceration, and counsel argues that a maximum-type sentence, as was imposed here, should be for those individuals that are categorized as hardened criminals. Counsel further opined that a sentence of 25 years with a period of parole is "an extremely long period of time" and, apparently, a more appropriate sentence for the petitioner.

The petitioner addressed the Division and did take responsibility for his conduct and asked the Division for leniency.

Counsel for the state, on the issue of petitioner's age, countered that the petitioner was "not a novice to the court system" and opined that the acts attributable to petitioner "are not the acts of a 17 year old who was . . . confused or unaware . . ." "Petitioner continued to shoot at victim in the face and chest until gun is empty." Counsel argued that the motivation for petitioner's act concerned the petitioner's belief there was a "likelihood that (Scott) would inform" on the criminal enterprise of petitioner and his brother.

The sentencing Court, in its comments, (Transcript, June 16, 1999, page 18) agreed that the answer to society's (criminal justice) problems is not long sentences. The Court went on to, in thoughtful comments, to opine that in many of the criminal matters before the Court the Court has noted "two common and constant factors" which the Court discerns when sentencing young people. The Court noted, generally, the defendants "do not have a viable mother and father in their lives." The Court noted that was the situation in the instant matter. The second factor, the Court noted, was that the early use of illegal drugs by young people is a contributing factor to criminal behavior. Although the Court was appropriately and reasonably concerned about the social causes of crime, in the interests of uniformity, the Court was compelled to impose a sentence "based upon other sentences I've given in other cases, similar cases, with all the usual requirements or deterrents." ( Id., 19).

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 the life of a human being was taken in order to protect a criminal enterprise, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.

In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.

THE SENTENCE IS AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. Morales

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
Feb 28, 2006
2006 Ct. Sup. 3965 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)
Case details for

State v. Morales

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. WILLIAM MORALES, JR. #245007

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury

Date published: Feb 28, 2006

Citations

2006 Ct. Sup. 3965 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)