State of Connecticut v. 262496 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Steven Saunders, petitioner, was found in Violation of Probation after a hearing before the court, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–32.   His original sentence on Risk of Injury to a Minor, in violation of General Statutes § 53–21, was seven years execution suspended and five years probation.   He initially violated his probation on July 10, 2006 and was allowed to continue on the original sentence.   On December 3, 2008, he violated his probation a second time and was sentenced to seven years execution suspended after one year to serve with 885 days of probation.   The court found a third violation of probation against the petitioner and sentenced him to five years to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was on probation involved a minor child.   A special condition of his probation was that he have no contact with the victim or her family.   The petitioner attempted to locate the victim's mother, his ex-wife, by sending an empty envelope to her former residence in the hope that he would obtain information as to where the family had moved through the postal return.   According to the State, the petitioner's ex-wife indicated that she felt as if he was “stalking” her and her family.   (Transcript at page 6.)

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner indicated that the sentence was “grossly disproportionate.”   Counsel indicated that petitioner had simply been trying to check on his children and there had been no “wilful” contact on his part.   The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that he was not a “stalker.”   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of how the petitioner had driven by the victim's house and had “concocted” a story to explain his behavior.   The State also outlined the petitioner's prior convictions as well as his violations of probation.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background and the nature of the violation.   The court found that there was “genuine fear on the part of the mother” based upon the petitioner's latest attempts to locate her and her family.  (Transcript at page 25.)

Pursuant to 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.”  Practice Book § 43–28.   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with these provisions of the Practice Book and General Statutes § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J.

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

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