Date: 04-26-2005

Case Style:

State of Connecticut v. Sean Adams

Case Number: 89435

Judge: THOMAS P. MIANO, HOLDEN, WILLIAM, IANNOTTI, FRANK, JUDGES.

Court: Superior Court of Connecticut on appeal from the Judicial District of New Haven County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Not Available

Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Sean Adams, petitioner, was convicted by jury verdict of:

        Murder, a violation of General Statutes Sec. 53a-54a, which provides for a penalty of not less than 25 years nor more than life incarceration (statutorily defined as 60 years); Conspiracy to Commit Murder, violations of C.G.S. Secs. 53a-48 and 53a-54a, which provides for a penalty of not less than one year nor more than 20 years incarceration; and two counts of Assault in the First Degree, violations of Sec. 53a-59(a)(1), each of which provides for a penalty of not less than one year nor more than 20 years incarceration. The trial court imposed a sentence of 60 years on the murder, 20 years on the conspiracy to commit murder, the latter being concurrent to the murder charge, and 20 years incarceration on each count of Assault in the First Degree, each consecutive to each other and the murder charge for a net effective sentence of 100 years incarceration. It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

        The record reflects that on December 16, 1996 at approximately 2:11 a.m. four men emerged from "the tunnel" at Farnum Courts housing project in New Haven, firing guns. This ambush was directed at three victims who were walking in the courtyard on one side of the tunnel. At least 29 shots were fired: five struck one victim; six struck the second victim; and two struck the third victim.

        As one of the victims laid on the ground, paralyzed from a bullet that struck his spine, one of the assailants shot him in the head killing him. The other two victims survived their wounds.

        Evidence at the trial established that Darcus Henry, one of the assailants, is a leader of the Island Brothers Gang, and that the other three assailants, including the petitioner, were subordinates in the gang. Evidence indicated that a feud between the Island Brothers and the Ghetto Boys Gang, of which the victims were members, had recently erupted in a series of shootings. In one incident an Island Brother was killed and one of the victim's brothers and another man were arrested for that shooting. There was evidence that the shooting in this case was a possible retaliation for the death of a brother gang member. See State v. Adams, 72 Conn.App. 734 (2004).

        At the hearing before the Division counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was 21 years of age at the time of the offense and comes from a good family and petitioner is a father. Counsel indicated that there was a three-month trial and on the day of sentencing no one from the petitioner's family appeared in court. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that his client's adult criminal record is comprised of crimes which occurred within a 6-month time span and counsel implored the Division to put the offenses in the context of the petitioner's 21 years. Counsel indicated that any sentence imposed must be tempered by petitioner's age and minimal criminal history. Counsel opined that even if the sentence was reduced by one-half it would accomplish society's purposes for sentencing and would accord petitioner the opportunity to be a productive member of society. In closing, counsel claimed that "a 100-year sentence serves no one."

        Counsel for the state countered that 3 persons were shot, one fatally. Counsel indicated that the act was "premeditated with the intent to kill." Counsel for the state argued that petitioner's prior criminal history of two assaults in the first degree and the narcotics case is a criminal record more significant than that of Darcus Henry who was the leader of the Island Brothers Gang.

        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 violent nature of the crime in which 3 persons were shot, one fatally, and petitioner's criminal history, 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.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: