State of Connecticut v. III 275396 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

BY THE DIVISION

Deaneric Dupas, III, petitioner, entered a guilty plea on September 1, 2004 to the following charges:  Felony Murder in violation of Connecticut General Statute 53a-54c, Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping in the First Degree in violation of Connecticut General Statute 53a-48/53a-92(a)(2) and Conspiracy to Commit Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of Connecticut General Statute 53a-48/53a-70(a)(1)(3).   Pursuant to an agreement between the petitioner and the state the trial court would sentence the petitioner within the parameters of a “cap” of not more than fifty years and a “floor” of not less than thirty-five years.   After considering the factual basis of the crime, the arguments of counsel and all other relevant circumstances, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty-seven years.   The sentence was forty-seven years on the Murder plea and twenty years concurrent on the two other pleas.   It is from this sentence that the petitioner seeks review.

The facts underlying the petitioner's criminal conduct are as follows.   On October 21, 1997 the mother of a 13-year-old female reported her missing to the New Milford police.   A body was found on July 15, 1998 in a Bridgewater lake in a blanket and chains.   An autopsy concluded the cause to be an intentional homicide.

The investigation was conducted over four years and several suspects emerged.   Police determined that Alan Walter, Deaneric Dupas, Keith Foster and five others had conspired to abduct, assault and intimidate the minor victim to get her to withdraw sexual assault complaints she had made with regard to Alan Walter and Keith Foster.   The group abducted the victim from a parking lot, sexually assaulted her, beat her and then wrapped her body up and dumped her into a lake.

The petitioner asks the Division to reduce his sentence because he argues his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to the criteria in Practice Book Section 43-28.   Subsequent to his sentence being imposed the petitioner did agree to testify at co-defendant Keith Foster's trial.   He did testify in said trial and as part of his agreement to testify the state would not object to a Motion to Modify his sentence to be heard by Judge Brunetti, the sentencing judge.   There was no agreement of any change in the original sentence.   Judge Brunetti, in a written decision dated July 13, 2007, did not modify the sentence citing the horrendous nature of the crime.

The petitioner filed an additional Application for Sentence Review on August 9, 2007 based on Judge Brunetti's decision of July 13, 2007.   The petitioner asks the Division to reduce his sentence because he argues it is inappropriate and disproportionate in light of the testimony he gave in the co-defendant's trial.

Counsel for the state argues the Division is collaterally estopped from deciding the petitioner's present sentence review because the issue was previously decided in State v. Dupas, 291 Conn. 778 (2009).   The Division declines to decide that issue here, however, where it has decided that the petitioner's sentence should be affirmed.

On November 24, 2009 the minor victim's mother addressed the Division.   She opposed any reduction in the petitioner's sentence and requested the sentence be increased by the Division.

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.”  Practice Book § 43-28.   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.

There is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   The petitioner was an active participant in the kidnapping and beating of the minor victim.   He held her down while she was sexually assaulted by the codefendants and then proceeded to drown her.   He then acted to deceive the police and the victim's family about her whereabouts after he had participated in her murder.

In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

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

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