State of Connecticut v. 135185 (2009)

Caption Date:

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Todd Agli. After a hearing in front of the trial judge, the petitioner was convicted of a violation of probation ¹ and sentenced to 75 months in prison.

The facts underlying the probation violation conviction are as follows.   The petitioner was originally sentenced to 15 years suspended after 7 years followed by five years of probation on May 16, 1997 on the charges of first degree sexual assault and first degree unlawful restraint.   After he finished his period of incarceration he commenced his probationary period and was subsequently violated on three occasions prior to losing the probation violation hearing involved in his sentence review application.   In his first three probation violation convictions the petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with the requirements that he get substance abuse treatment, report as directed, reside in approved locations and other special conditions.   In the probation violation conviction that is the subject of the sentence review application, the petitioner was violated based on his refusal to reside, as a required condition of his probation, at the Salvation Army shelter in New Britain.   An investigation by the probation department revealed that there were sixteen dates during 2007 when the petitioner did not spend the night in the shelter as required.

The petitioner argues that his failure to comply with the residency requirements of probation are “technical” in nature and that the 75-month sentence he received is therefore “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.²  He asserts that the trial court unfairly punished him simply because he did not spend the night where he was required to by probation and that he is not a danger to society.

The state objects to any reduction in the sentence.   It points out that the petitioner has been violated multiple times on the same probation and that his probation officer notes that he is not a good probation risk based on his pattern of non-compliance with the conditions of probation.   It also reminds the Division that the facts underlying the petitioner's criminal conviction are that the petitioner assaulted a man with a bottle and then violently raped the man's girlfriend.   The male victim managed get away from the petitioner in order to call the police who, when they arrived at the scene of the crime, caught the petitioner in the act of sexually assaulting the female victim.

The Division has carefully considered the parties' arguments and all the relevant information in this case and has determined that there is no good reason to reduce the petitioner's sentence.   The trial court made it abundantly clear in its sentencing remarks that it was not sentencing the petitioner based on his failure to comply with the conditions of probation, but because he convicted of a brutal crime and incarceration was therefore in the best interest of public safety.   There is no merit in the petitioner's claim that he received a 75-month sentence simply because he failed to live in the shelter where he was required to reside.   He received the sentence he did because he has a criminal history stretching back to the early 1990s, he was convicted of a prior sexual assault, he repeatedly failed to comply with the conditions of probation and his underlying crime is extremely serious.   The sentence he received from the trial court is well within the boundaries established by Section 43-28.

The sentence is AFFIRMED

White, J.

Iannotti, J.

Alexander, J.

White, J., Iannotti, J. and Alexander, J. participated in this decision

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a-32.   The petitioner was originally sentenced to a total effective sentence of 15 years suspended after 7 on the charges of sexual assault in the first degree and unlawful restraint in the first degree.   The crime of first degree sexual assault is punishable by a maximum of twenty years in prison and carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years.   The crime of first degree unlawful restraint carries a maximum sentence of five years of incarceration..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a-32.   The petitioner was originally sentenced to a total effective sentence of 15 years suspended after 7 on the charges of sexual assault in the first degree and unlawful restraint in the first degree.   The crime of first degree sexual assault is punishable by a maximum of twenty years in prison and carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years.   The crime of first degree unlawful restraint carries a maximum sentence of five years of incarceration.

FN2. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN2. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

White, Gary J., Iannotti, Frank A., Alexander Joan K., J.s