State of Connecticut v. 361096 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

SENTENCE AFFIRMED

BY THE DIVISION

The petitioner is Shaquima Dozier.   She entered a guilty plea and was sentenced on December 4, 2009 to the charge of Assault 1st Degree—Aid By Others in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a–59(a)(4).   The petitioner and the state agreed to a cap sentence as follows, the trial court would sentence the petitioner within the parameters of a cap of no more than 20 years suspended after 13 years and a floor of not less than 20 years suspended after 9 years.   After considering the factual basis of the crime the arguments of counsel and all other relevant circumstances the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 20 years suspended after 11 1/2 years.   It is from this sentence that the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   On July 19, 2008 Waterbury Police responded to an unidentified female who was unconscious.   Two witnesses saw three females assault the victim by grabbing her hair and banging her head on the ground.   The victim did not fight back.   The assault went on for several minutes.   The petitioner was one of the girls involved in the assault.

The petitioner claims her sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   She claims she was the least culpable of the three defendants and received the highest sentence.   She argues a sentence of 9 years would be appropriate.

The state argues this was an extremely serious assault.   The victim was in intensive care for eleven days.   She had part of her skull removed.   The state noted the victim was smaller than the other three defendants.   The state argues the sentence is appropriate as the defendant initiated the fight.

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.   The petitioner was sentenced within the cap and floor she agreed to.   This was an extremely serious assault upon a defenseless victim who suffered serious and permanent injuries.

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, Gary White, Joan K. Alexander, Judges

Fischer, Brian T., White, Gary J., Alexander, Joan K., Js.