State of Connecticut v. 340646 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Rafael Crespo, Jr., petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1) with a penalty of not less than two years up to twenty years;  and, one count of Assault in the Third Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61(a) with a penalty of up to one year.   The court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of twenty years execution suspended after he serves fourteen years, followed by fifteen years of probation.   It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The factual basis for this conviction involves the petitioner sexually assaulting the victim, who was his girlfriend, on two separate occasions.   The victim suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of the petitioner, who was a police officer as well as a former Marine.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was inappropriate because it did not take into account his background and his Marine service.   Counsel argued that the petitioner had been acquitted of several additional felonies and that his sentence should be reduced.   Petitioner addressed the Division and took responsibility for his current circumstances and offered an apology to his former fiancée.   Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed was appropriate as the petitioner was a police officer and his conduct with the victim was in stark contrast to the trust he was afforded in the community.   The victim had been treated “brutally” and these crimes were about “anger” and “power.”   The sentencing court took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the offenses.   The court found that there was a “stark contrast” in this case in that there were many who spoke of the petitioner with “genuine affection” and those who spoke of his “brutality.”  (Transcript at page 71.)   The sentencing court found it necessary “to reconcile these competing considerations and impose a fair sentence.”  (Transcript at page 73.)

Pursuant to 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 Practice Book § 43-23 et seq. and General Statute § 51-194, et seq.

Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as well as the petitioner's background and lack of 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 Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Iannotti, J.

White, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., White, Gary J., Fischer, Brian T., J.'s