State of Connecticut v. Alberto Vaquez (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

SENTENCE AFFIRMED

BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner, Alberto Vasquez, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Robbery in the Third Degree, in Violation of General Statutes § 53a-136, with a penalty of one to five years;  and, one count of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the Third Degree, in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48(a) and 53a-136 with a penalty of one to five years.   The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years to serve execution suspended after eight years and nine months followed by three years of probation.   It is from this sentence that the petitioner seeks review.

The charges brought against the petitioner relate to a robbery which occurred at a car wash.   The victim was an employee of the business who was forced into the bathroom and the contents of his pockets were taken by the threat of force.   The contents of the cash register were also missing.   The petitioner had been an employee of the business previously.   According to the State's evidence, the petitioner was the one who planned the robbery based upon his working knowledge of the business.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner asked the panel to modify the sentence to an eight year flat sentence.   Counsel argued that the victim was not traumatized by the incident.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing.   The State contended that the evidence against the petitioner proved that he was the “mastermind” of the incident, yet he accepted no responsibility for his actions and used his younger sibling as an accomplice.

The trial court had an opportunity to observe all of the circumstances that the petitioner now seeks to use as his basis for review.   The court was aware of the circumstances of the crime as well as the petitioner's criminal history.

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 nature of these crimes, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Iannotti, J.

White, J.

Alexander, J., lannotti, J., White, J. participated in this decision.

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