State of Connecticut v. 189248 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

BY THE DIVISION

Martin M., petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(2) with a penalty of not less than ten years up to twenty-five years;  one count of Kidnapping in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92(a)(2)(B) with a penalty of ten to twenty-five years;  one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(l) with a penalty of one to ten years;  and, one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(2) with a penalty of one to twenty years.   The petitioner appealed the conviction and the count of Kidnapping in the First Degree was reversed.  (See State v. Martin M., 115 Conn.App. 166 (2009)).   Thereafter, the State withdrew its prosecution of this charge.   The court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of thirty years to serve.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis for this conviction involves the petitioner sexually assaulting his minor son.   The assaults occurred on the victim from the ages of four to ten years old.   As a result, the child sustained internal injuries and permanent scarring.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was inappropriate because the reversal of the Kidnapping count warranted a reduction in the sentence.   Counsel also argued that petitioner posed a lower risk recidivism due to the nature of the charges.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the petitioner had two prior sexual assault convictions and the instant offense had a severe impact on the child.

The sentencing court took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the offenses.   The court found that it was necessary “to make sure that you never have the opportunity to do something like this to any child again.”  (Transcript at page 22.)

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 the allegations, as well as the petitioner's criminal history, 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 the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.   The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., J., White, Gary J., J., Fischer, Brian T., J.,