State of Connecticut v. 373245 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Jose Pomavilla, enter pleas of guilty to the following charges:  Burglary in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–101(a)(2), with a penalty of one to twenty years;  Sexual Assault in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70(a)(1), with a penalty of not less than two years to twenty years;  Burglary in the Third Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–103, with a penalty of one to five years;  Criminal Violation of a Protective Order, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–223, with a penalty of one to five years;  and, Unlawful Restraint in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–95, with a penalty of one to five years.   The parties agreed at the time the pleas were entered of a sentencing maximum of twenty years execution suspended after ten years with a period of probation to be determined by the court between ten and thirty-five years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years execution suspended after eight years to serve followed by two years of special parole and then twenty-five years probation.   It is from this sentence that the petitioner seeks review.

The charges brought against the petitioner relate to an extremely violent domestic situation.   The complainant was subjected to extensive physical and psychological abuse by the petitioner.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence that the court imposed did not correspond to the parameters of the petitioner's plea agreement.   However, the record is clear that the petitioner had been advised of the fact that he could be exposed to both special parole and probation.

Counsel for the state addressed the Division at the hearing.   The State contended that the petitioner had proper notice of his plea agreement.   The State indicated that the petitioner “terrorized” the complainant and threatened to kill her daughter.   The State asked that the sentence be affirmed.

The sentencing court noted that the petitioner was “a walking crime spree.”   (Transcript page 16.)   The court noted that the Sexual Assault count was controlling and that it was necessary to effectuate a sentence, in some form of incarceration and special parole, of at least ten years.  (Transcript at pages 16 and 17.)

The Sentence Review Division is limited in the scope of its review.   (Practice Book § 43–23 et seq.)   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 the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51–194 et seq.   Taking into consideration the extensive nature of this criminal conduct, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.   In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with Practice Book § 43–23 et seq.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

White, J.

Randolph, J.

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

Alexander, Joan K., White, Gary J., Randolph, Kevin, Js.