State of Connecticut v. 336744 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Rudy Alexandro Ortiz.   He voluntarily pled guilty to the charges of accessory to assault in the first degree ¹ and conspiracy to assault in the first degree ² and agreed to a “cap” sentence of 30 years, including a “floor” of 13 years to serve.   As part of the agreement, both the petitioner and the state retained the right to argue for a sentence within the aforementioned parameters.   The trial court, after reviewing a pre-sentence investigation report and hearing arguments from counsel, imposed a total effective sentence of 22 years, including 10 years mandatory minimum.

The facts underlying the conviction are as follows.   On August 4, 2004 at 11:30 p.m. the Danbury Police received information about a shooting at a local basketball court.   Through their investigation the police learned that the petitioner, who was at that time the president of the local chapter of the Latin Kings gang, lead a group of gang members who attacked five unarmed young men with firearms, a knife and other weapons.   The petitioner orchestrated the assault by recruiting a young woman from Danbury to lure the victims to the basketball court.   The crime was planned by the petitioner as an act of revenge against the youths because the petitioner had, on an earlier date, lost a fist fight to one of the victims at a Danbury night club.   Four of the victims were either punched, bludgeoned with blunt instruments, stabbed multiple times or shot.

The petitioner asks for a reduction in his sentence, claiming that it is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28.³  He makes this claim even though he received a sentence that was well within the range that he agreed to when he voluntarily pled guilty to the crimes charged.   He argues that he was young at the time of the offense, that he is remorseful and that the attack spiraled out of control when his accomplices employed the use of weapons without his knowledge or consent.

The state objects to any reduction in the sentence because the petitioner was a convicted felon at the time of the crime, plotted the attack as an act of revenge and is ultimately responsible for the debilitating injuries suffered by some of the victims.

The Division, having carefully considered the parties' claims, finds that there is no persuasive reason to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court.   The petitioner received eight years less prison time than he could have received under the agreement that he made with the state.   Further, the petitioner was the “mastermind” behind the brutal attack on five unarmed men who he “set up” by having a young woman lure them to the basketball court.   His claim that the sentence received is improper under Section 43–28 is without merit.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–8/53a–59(a)(1).   This crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of twenty years..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–8/53a–59(a)(1).   This crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of twenty years.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–48/53a–59(a)(1).   This crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of twenty years..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–48/53a–59(a)(1).   This crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of twenty years.

FN3. 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.”.  FN3. 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., Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., J.s