State of Connecticut v. 270749 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

After a court hearing, the petitioner, Warren Pollard, was convicted of violation of probation pursuant to General Statutes Section 53a-32.   The trial court sentenced him to 48 months to serve, followed by 12 months of special parole.   The conviction underlying the petitioner's probation was for concurrent counts of risk of injury to a minor ¹ and involved concurrent sentences of 5 years suspended, followed by 10 years of probation.

In connection with the risk of injury convictions, the facts are that the petitioner had “phone sex” with a 13-year-old female on multiple occasions and repeatedly had contact with her intimate parts.   At the petitioner's probation violation hearing, the trial court found that the petitioner had failed to comply with special conditions of probation regarding treatment, employment and alcohol use.   In addition, the trial court determined that the petitioner had been convicted of multiple criminal offenses while he was on probation.   Those criminal convictions involved the petitioner acting violently toward minor children and assaulting his wife.

The petitioner claims that the sentence he received is “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28.²  In support of this claim, he asserts that he has strong family support, including support from his wife and the victim of the risk of injury convictions, and that he is remorseful for his crimes.

The state argues that the sentence should remain unchanged because the trial court was aware of the strong family support received by the petitioner, yet still believed that a significant period of incarceration was warranted based on the seriousness of the petitioner's criminal conduct and his failure to comply with the conditions of probation.

The Division only has authority to reduce a criminal sentence if it fails to fall within the parameters of Section 43-28.   The sentence in this matter clearly is well within those parameters.   The trial court considered the protection of society, the petitioner's inability or refusal to refrain from criminal conduct and his family's show of support when it fashioned the sentence it did.   That sentence is both appropriate and proportionate considering the facts and circumstances of this case.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J., lannotti, J. and Dooley, J. participated in this decision.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53-21(a).   This offense carries a maximum penalty of ten years of imprisonment..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53-21(a).   This offense carries a maximum penalty of ten years of imprisonment.

FN2. 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.”.  FN2. 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., Dooley, Kari A. Js.