State of Connecticut v. 190116 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Statement of the Case

Application for Review of Sentence imposed by the Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, docket number CR06–57392.   Assistant State's Attorney John Doyle represented the State of Connecticut.   Attorney Sebastian DeSantis represented the applicant.

Issue

Was the sentence imposed disproportionate in 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?

Statement of Facts

On various dates between November 1, 2004 and August 2, 2005 the defendant sexually assaulted the victim, having sexual intercourse with her.   The defendant was in his early thirties.   The victim was eleven.   The defendant impregnated the victim when she was 12 years old.

At trial, the state's evidence showed a “high statistical probability” that the defendant was the father.   The jury convicted the defendant of one count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of C.G.S. § 53a–70(a)(2) and one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor in violation of C.G.S. § 53–21(a)(2).   The court, Licari, J. sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years on the sexual assault count and 20 years, suspended after ten years, and 15 years probation on the second count.   The sentences ran consecutively for a total effective sentence of 45 years suspended after 35 years and 15 years probation.

At sentencing, the court noted the defendant's unsuccessful drug rehabilitation history, his frequent sexual assaults of the victim and the trust he violated.   The court also noted the defendant's warnings to the victim that she not report the assaults.   At the sentence review hearing, the defendant maintained his innocence but did not deny the conduct which resulted in the 12 year old's pregnancy.

Principles of Law

“The review division shall review the sentence imposed and 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, and the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”   Practice Book Sec. 43–28.

Analysis

The sentencing court properly considered the defendant's history, background, and character and the nature and circumstances of the offense.   The sentence was not inappropriate or disproportionate considering the legitimate purposes for which the court imposed it pursuant to Practice Book Sec. 43–28.

Judgment

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Kevin Randolph

Hon. Gary White

Hon. Joan Alexander

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

Randolph, Kevin A., J., White, Gary J., J. and Alexander, Joan K., J.