State of Connecticut 1 v. 338345 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Jason B., was convicted by a jury of the crimes of unlawful restraint in the first degree ² and sexual assault in the first degree.³  He received a sentence of 5 years to serve on the unlawful restraint charge and a consecutive sentence of 20 years suspended after 10 years (including 2 years mandatory minimum), 35 years probation on the sexual assault charge.   The trial court, therefore, intended to impose “a total effective sentence of 25 years suspended after 15, 2 years mandatory minimum, and 35 years of probation.”   The petitioner appealed his conviction, but the decision of the trial court was affirmed.   See State v. Jason B., 111 Conn.App. 359 aff'd (2008).

The facts underlying the conviction are outlined in detail in the Appellate Court decision.   For purposes of this sentence review decision, however, the facts are stated as follows.   The petitioner and the victim were married in September of 1999 and were subsequently divorced in February of 2006.   On February 21, 2006 the petitioner repeatedly contacted the victim and at about 8:30 p.m. on that date, the two agreed to meet at a restaurant in order to talk.   After the two had dinner and talked, they got into the petitioner's car and the petitioner asked his ex-wife for sex.   She refused his request and then tried to leave the vehicle, but the petitioner would not let her go.   He then drove her to a secluded area and forced her to perform oral sex on him and to have both vaginal and anal intercourse.

After the attack the petitioner then drove the victim back to the restaurant where she retrieved her own car and then drove herself home.   She later went to the hospital for treatment and reported the incident to the police.   The petitioner was thereafter arrested.

At his sentence review hearing the petitioner argued that his total effective sentence is “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28.⁴  In support of this claim he asserts that he is not a danger to his former wife and that he never wants to talk to her again.   He also claims that he never forced her to have sex.   The petitioner asserts that the sentences he received for the two charges he was convicted of should be served concurrently.   Concurrent sentences, he claims, is the best way to effectuate the purposes underlying Section 43–28.

The state strongly disagrees.   It argues that the sentence as imposed is proper and should remain intact.   It points out that at the time of sentencing the petitioner failed to show any genuine remorse for his conduct and that he refused to accept responsibility for his actions.   The state claims that the sentence imposed by the trial court satisfies that requirements outlined in Section 43–28 and is vital to the safety and security of the victim.

The victim appeared at the sentence review hearing and indicated that she was traumatized by the petitioner's criminal behavior and asked the court to protect her and other members of society by ensuring that the petitioner serves the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The panel, having carefully reviewed all the relevant information and arguments regarding the petitioner's application, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43–28 and should remain unchanged.   The petitioner perpetrated a brutal assault on the victim, has failed to accept responsibility and poses a danger to both the victim and to society.   There is no persuasive reason to alter his sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

White., J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–95(a).   This offence carries a maximum sentence of five years incarceration..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–95(a).   This offence carries a maximum sentence of five years incarceration.

FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–70(a)(1).   This offence carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years and a maximum sentence of twenty years..  FN3. See General Statutes Section 53a–70(a)(1).   This offence carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years and a maximum sentence of twenty years.

FN4. 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.”.  FN4. 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