State v. Norfleet

Connecticut Superior Court

State v. Norfleet

238 A.2d 433, 27 Conn. Super. Ct. 360, 27 Conn. Supp. 360, 1968 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108

DecidedFebruary 7, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.2d 433 (State v. Norfleet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Norfleet, 238 A.2d 433, 27 Conn. Super. Ct. 360, 27 Conn. Supp. 360, 1968 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Division.

The defendant, seventeen years of age, pleaded guilty to robbery with violence and was sentenced to an indefinite term at the Connecticut reformatory. The statutory penalty for robbery with violence is imprisonment for not more than twenty-five years. General Statutes § 53-14.

On July 29, 1967, at about 10:30 o’clock in the evening, the defendant and another participant, who is still at large, sat on a stone wall across from a grocery store in Waterbury with a thirteen-year-old youth for about ten minutes. They showed the youth a pocket knife and told him that they were going to rob the owner. They went in the store and asked for beer. The owner said it was too late and refused to sell. They argued and then left the store when a customer came in. Subsequently, they returned and pulled out a pocket knife, forced the owner into the back room, and took the store keys from his pocket. They then punched the seventy-three-year-old owner, knocked him to the floor and took $60 from his pocket and $29 from the cash register. Two hours later the defendant was apprehended. Upon a search, a pocket knife similar to the one described by the victim was found in the defendant’s pocket.

Although this is the defendant’s first adult conviction, as a juvenile he was involved in criminal activities a number of times and twice placed on probation, the last offense being breaking and entering and damage to private property.

The court considered the eligibility of the defendant for probation, but after a careful review of the circumstances decided that “it is necessary in cases like this to have the public feel that the law is trying to protect the law-abiding segment of the city.” The Division agrees. The crime of robbery with *362 violence is such that probation must be denied except in nnnsnal cases. This is not snch a case, in view of the violence involved and defendant’s prior juvenile activities. The sentence must stand. It is affirmed.

Healey, Barber and Wall, Js., participated in this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Division.

The defendant, seventeen years of age, pleaded guilty to robbery with violence and was sentenced to an indefinite term at the Connecticut reformatory. The statutory penalty for robbery with violence is imprisonment for not more than twenty-five years. General Statutes § 53-14.

On July 29, 1967, at about 10:30 o’clock in the evening, the defendant and another participant, who is still at large, sat on a stone wall across from a grocery store in Waterbury with a thirteen-year-old youth for about ten minutes. They showed the youth a pocket knife and told him that they were going to rob the owner. They went in the store and asked for beer. The owner said it was too late and refused to sell. They argued and then left the store when a customer came in. Subsequently, they returned and pulled out a pocket knife, forced the owner into the back room, and took the store keys from his pocket. They then punched the seventy-three-year-old owner, knocked him to the floor and took $60 from his pocket and $29 from the cash register. Two hours later the defendant was apprehended. Upon a search, a pocket knife similar to the one described by the victim was found in the defendant’s pocket.

Although this is the defendant’s first adult conviction, as a juvenile he was involved in criminal activities a number of times and twice placed on probation, the last offense being breaking and entering and damage to private property.

The court considered the eligibility of the defendant for probation, but after a careful review of the circumstances decided that “it is necessary in cases like this to have the public feel that the law is trying to protect the law-abiding segment of the city.” The Division agrees. The crime of robbery with *362 violence is such that probation must be denied except in nnnsnal cases. This is not snch a case, in view of the violence involved and defendant’s prior juvenile activities. The sentence must stand. It is affirmed.

Healey, Barber and Wall, Js., participated in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.2d 433, 27 Conn. Super. Ct. 360, 27 Conn. Supp. 360, 1968 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-norfleet-connsuperct-1968.