STATE v. SANTIAGO, No. HHD CR02-557175 (Aug. 1, 2011)

WHITE, J., ALEXANDER, J., FISCHER, J.

The petitioner, Luis Santiago, was convicted by a jury of the crimes of felony murder, robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 45 years to serve.

The petitioner appealed his conviction, but the trial court's decision was affirmed. See State v. Santiago, 103 Conn App 406, aff'd (2007). The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are detailed in the Appellate Court decision, but for purposes of this sentence review opinion it is sufficient to state them as follows. On October 9, 2001 the petitioner and his accomplice, Justin Cross, were both armed and went to a housing project in Hartford with the intent to rob any drug dealer they could find. When the two confederates arrived at the housing project they saw the victim and a second victim while those two were in a parked automobile. The petitioner and his co-defendant then approached the two victims and demanded that they hand over their property, including any cash and drugs. The first victim left the car, walked away with his hands in the air and refused to stop when one of the two criminals demanded that he stop. Cross then shot the first victim dead and the second victim was also shot, but he survived. The robbery and shootings netted the two criminals a total of $40 in cash and three small bags of drugs.

The petitioner asks for a reduction in his sentence from 45 years to 28 years, the same sentence that his accomplice received after pleading guilty to his crimes, expressing remorse and apologizing to the families of the victims. The petitioner argues that his co-defendant is the person who actually "pulled the trigger" when the first victim was shot to death and the petitioner denies that he shot the second victim. He asserts that he is therefore entitled to a reduction of his sentence commensurate with that received by Cross.

The state opposes any reduction. It argues that the petitioner was an active participant in the armed robbery and reminds the Division that CT Page 17188 because the petitioner was convicted of felony murder, he is a murderer without regard to whether he personally discharged the fatal shots. In addition, the state points out that the petitioner has refused to accept responsibility for his role in this brutal crime.

The Division only has authority to alter a criminal sentence that contravenes the parameters of Practice Book Section 43-28 because it is "inappropriate" or "disproportionate." The sentence imposed by the trial court is clearly within the limits set out in Section 43-28. The petitioner's conduct resulted in the death of one victim, the serious injury of another and he has refused to accept responsibility for his crime. His sentence is appropriate, proportionate and fair under the totality of the circumstances.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J., Alexander, J. and (B) Fischer, J. participated in this decision.

CT Page 17189