State of Connecticut v. 244489 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Dwight Godley, petitioner, was found in Violation of Probation after a hearing before the court, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–32.   His original sentence on Sexual Assault in the First Degree in a Spousal Relationship, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70b, was ten years execution suspended after three years to serve and ten years probation.   He previously violated his probation and received a sentence of seven years execution suspended after nine months to serve and the balance of his probation.   On November 21, 2008, the court found the petitioner in Violation of Probation and imposed a sentence of six years and three months to serve.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner deferred to his client and did not make an argument.   The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that he felt that his sentence should be “time served” or other comparable reduction.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of how the court made extensive findings at the violation hearing and that the sentence imposed was “not unduly harsh.”

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 violations.   The court found that the petitioner was “completely unamenable to probation and the court orders.”  (Transcript at page 95.)   The court further found that “the beneficial purposes of probation have been thwarted by the defendant's own activities.”  (Transcript at pages 96–97.)

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.