State of Connecticut v. Ruben Thuillard (2010)

SENTENCE AFFIRMED

The petitioner, Ruben Thuillard, was convicted by a three-judge panel of the charges of murder ¹ and risk of injury to a minor ² and was given a total effective sentence of 48 years of incarceration.   The petitioner appealed his conviction, however, the trial court decision was affirmed.   See State v. Ruben T., 104 Conn.App. 780 (2007), cert. den., 285 Conn. 917 (2008).

The factual basis of the conviction is rendered in detail in the Appellate Court decision.   For purposes of this sentence review decision, however, it is sufficient to state the facts as follows.   The petitioner and the victim, who was the mother of his three-year-old child, were involved in an acrimonious relationship, mainly over issues such as child support, child visitation and parenting.   On March 28, 2003 at 7:30 p.m., the victim drove the child to the home of the petitioner in compliance with a child visitation agreement between the parents.   The petitioner met the victim and child near the victim's car, but refused to take the boy unless the victim agreed to discuss child support and visitation issues.   The victim refused and the petitioner turned and walked back toward his residence, leaving the child with the victim.

When the petitioner was walking away, the victim threw an unknown object at him which struck him.   She also cursed him.   In response to being hit and cursed the petitioner approached the victim, then pulled a knife from his pocket and repeatedly stabbed her in the back, head and neck.   During the course of this violent attack, the couple's child was watching and was standing so close that he was drenched in his mother's blood.

When the petitioner finished stabbing the victim, he put his son in the victim's car and drove to the Windsor Police Department where he said that he had been involved in a “domestic dispute.”   In the meantime, several of the petitioner's neighbors, who had witnessed the assault, called the police and summoned an ambulance for the victim.   The victim, however, died as a result of her wounds.

Ultimately, the petitioner confessed that he killed the victim.

The petitioner asks that his sentence be reduced because, he claims, he did not premeditate the homicide;  he had no criminal record at the time of the attack;  he held a steady job and paid his child support;  and he overcame a traumatic brain injury and can be trusted to live a peaceful and productive life in society.

The state argues that the sentence should remain as it is because the petitioner carried out an extremely brutal attack against the mother of his child right in front of that child.   It points out that the trial evidence establishes that the petitioner's traumatic brain injury did not contribute to his criminal behavior and that the petitioner's conduct has inflicted permanent psychological damage on the child.

The victim's mother spoke at the sentence review hearing and urged the Division to leave the sentence intact.   She underscored the fact that the petitioner's crime was senseless, brutal and had a terrible, long-lasting effect on her grandson, who watched his mother being murdered by his father.

The Division is without authority to modify a criminal sentence unless it is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.³  After carefully reviewing the record and considering all the arguments, the Division finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court clearly falls within the parameters of Section 43-28.   The trial court carefully weighed and balanced the positive attributes in the petitioner's background against the heinous nature of the crime and the harm done to the victim, her family and the child.   The sentence imposed was appropriate, proportionate and just under the totality of the circumstances.

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-54(a)(1).   This crime carries a mandatory minimum of 25 years of incarceration and a maximum of 60 years of incarceration..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a-54(a)(1).   This crime carries a mandatory minimum of 25 years of incarceration and a maximum of 60 years of incarceration.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 53-21(a)(1).   This crime carries a maximum sentence of 10 years of incarceration..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 53-21(a)(1).   This crime carries a maximum sentence of 10 years of incarceration.

FN3. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in 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.”.  FN3. Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in 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., Js.