State of Connecticut v. 231823 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Gregory Hasiotis, admitted a violation of probation ¹ and pled guilty to possession of narcotics,² to burglary in the third degree ³ and to failure to appear in the first degree.⁴  The petitioner was ultimately sentenced as follows:  CR08–0240177 for Burglary 3rd:  5 years;  on CR07–0229016 for Possession of Narcotics:  3 years, consecutive;  on CR03–0188428 for FTA:  5 years, concurrent and on CR08–0231242 for possession of narcotics:  5 years concurrent.   The probation was terminated.

The crimes underlying his violation of probation include, among other offenses, two counts of burglary in the third degree.   The petitioner owed six years of incarceration on the violation of probation.   In lieu of immediate incarceration for his violation of probation and possession of narcotics charges, the petitioner agreed to a 4–year “cap” and was accepted into Bridgeport drug court on the condition that he comply with that court's rules.

The petitioner failed to comply with the drug court rules by rendering multiple “dirty” urines, failing to appear in court and committing larceny in the sixth degree.   Despite this misconduct, the petitioner convinced the trial court and the state to forgo sentencing him and to allow him to re-enter drug court.   The court, state and petitioner agreed, however, the petitioner was allowed back into drug court only on the condition that he would receive a sentence of not more than 10 years and not less than 6 years if he failed to comply with the program rules.

The petitioner, however, failed again by continuing to use drugs while in the program and by willfully failing to appear at sentencing.

When the petitioner was finally taken into custody, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 8 years to serve even though it could have imposed the full cap sentence of 10 years.

The petitioner claims that his sentence is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28.⁵  He makes this claim even though he voluntarily entered his pleas and received a sentence that is within the range that he agreed to, continued to use drugs while in the program and failed to appear on the date of sentencing.   He asserts that his sentence is too harsh and that he deserves yet another chance to prove himself.

The state argues that the sentence should remain as is.   It claims that the drug court can only maintain its credibility if repeated failures by drug court participants are sanctioned, especially when those failures are the result of the participant's continued use of drugs while in the program and his perpetration of new criminal conduct while in the program, i.e., the petitioner's failure to appear at sentencing.   The state further argues that the petitioner's continued drug use and criminal failure to appear show that he is not serious about getting help for his drug problem.

The Division agrees with the state.   The petitioner repeatedly used drugs while in the program, was given multiple chances to become compliant and committed the crime of failure to appear by willfully absenting himself from court at the time of sentencing.   There is no good reason to reduce his sentence.

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–32..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–32.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 21a–279(a).   The maximum penalty for this crime is seven years of incarceration..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 21a–279(a).   The maximum penalty for this crime is seven years of incarceration.

FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–103.   The maximum penalty for this crime is five years of incarceration..  FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–103.   The maximum penalty for this crime is five years of incarceration.

FN4. See General Statutes Section 53a–172.   The maximum penalty for this crime is five years of incarceration..  FN4. See General Statutes Section 53a–172.   The maximum penalty for this crime is five years of incarceration.

FN5. 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.”.  FN5. 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