State of Connecticut v. 341106 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Daniel Villafane.   Judge Alexander recused herself from this hearing.   The parties agreed to proceed with Judge Gary White and Judge Brian Fischer.

On May 26, 2010 the petitioner voluntarily admitted a violation of probation charge.   He was released with a six-month period of compliance with all specific and standard conditions of probation.   He owed a total of seven years having pled to Risk of Injury and sentenced to 10 years suspended after 3 years.   He did not comply with the conditions of probation and was sentenced by the trial court to 7 years suspended after the service of 3 years.   It is from this sentence that the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   The petitioner, while on probation, was arrested in Massachusetts for driving under suspension.   He had left the state without his probation officer's approval and without a travel pass.   He was with a convicted felon while on this trip.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner argues this was only a “technical” violation of his probation.   He has been working hard and this was his first mistake while on probation.   The petitioner argues six months to serve would be an appropriate sentence.

The state argues the petitioner was on “zero tolerance.”   This is much more than a technical violation.   These were very serious violations of his probation.   He had been given substantial breaks in the past by the criminal justice system.   The state also argues he has a bad criminal record.

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.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   He had received substantial breaks in the past and was on zero tolerance.   There were numerous violations of his probation.

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 al.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary White, Judge

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

Fischer, Brian T., White, Gary J., J.s