State of Connecticut v. 250887 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Petitioner Thomas Sentementes was found in violation of his probation following a hearing at which he represented himself.   He is represented by counsel before the Sentence Review Division.   The petitioner had been on probation as a result of a conviction on two counts of assault on a public safety officer.   He was sentenced for those offenses to a total effective sentence of eight years incarceration, suspended after 3 months, to be followed by 5 years probation.   Having been found in violation, the petitioner was exposed to a potential sentence of 7 years, 9 months, the unexecuted portion of the original sentence.

The defendant was found to have violated his probation when he assaulted an ex-girlfriend and was thereafter combative and uncooperative with the police.   The court found that he had violated the laws of the State of Connecticut in violation of the terms of his probation.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner should not have represented himself;  that the sentencing was unfair under those circumstances and that the 6–year sentence imposed was too high.   The State seeks to have the sentence remain undisturbed.

The transcript of the VOP hearing and the sentencing reflect that the trial court properly considered the evidence before it in determining whether the petitioner was amenable to further probation or whether and to what extent incarceration was appropriate.   The court cited the petitioner's obvious problems with both alcohol and self control.   The court noted the decision the petitioner made when he accepted the underlying plea agreement, and the promise inherent in that agreement with respect to probation.   The court was fully aware of the petitioner's criminal history as well as his history with the probation department.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 43–23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in its scope of 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 Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statute § 51–194, et seq.

Taking into consideration each of these factors, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.   In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Dooley, J.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

Dooley, J., Alexander, J., and Fischer, J. Participated in this decision.

Dooley, Kari A., Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., J.s