State of Connecticut v. 134872 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Gilbert Irizarry, petitioner, was found guilty after a trial to a jury of one count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70(a)(2) with a penalty of not less than ten years to twenty-five years;  one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor, in violation of General Statutes § 53–21(a)(1) with a penalty of one to ten years;  and one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor–Sexual Contact, in violation of General Statutes § 53–21(a)(2) with penalty of one to ten years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-five years to serve followed by ten years of special parole.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted involved the repeated sexual abuse of his step-daughter.   The assaults began when the child was approximately nine years old and consisted of the petitioner forcing the girl to perform oral sex on him.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner indicated that the sentence should be reduced to between five and ten years to serve followed by an increased term of special parole.   Counsel indicated that the allegations made against the petitioner had been a delayed disclosure and that there existed factual discrepancies regarding the minor's claims.   The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that he could not believe the time to serve that he had received from the sentencing court.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the nature of the assaults on the minor child and asked the court to affirm the sentence that had been imposed.   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 serious nature of the offenses as well as the impact that this conduct had upon the victim.

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 the provisions of Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51–194 et seq.

Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the nature of the instant offenses, 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.