State of Connecticut v. 354030 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Frank Cefaloni, was originally charged with murder.¹  Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, however, the state changed the charge to intentional manslaughter,² the petitioner pled guilty under the Alford ³ doctrine and each party was free to argue to the trial court for whatever sentence it believed appropriate.   After reviewing the presentence investigation, considering other relevant information and hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court imposed a sentence of 20 years to serve.

The facts underlying the petitioner's crime are as follows.   On October 3, 2007 at 8:05 p.m. the Danbury police responded to an assault complaint.   When the police arrived at the victim's home they found that he was suffering from severe head trauma and that his wife was suffering from facial wounds.

The police learned that the victim and his wife had been attacked by the petitioner, who is their adult son.   At an earlier point, the petitioner had entered the home of his parents and without any provocation, began viciously beating his father.

The petitioner's mother hit him over the head with a chair in an attempt to get him to stop assaulting the father, but the petitioner was unrelenting in his attack.

After savagely beating the victim, the petitioner fled the scene in his automobile.   The police later found him near his home.   He was covered in his father's blood and his clothes were in disarray.

The victim ultimately died as a result of beating that his son inflicted on him.

The petitioner now asks the Division to reduce his sentence to 10 years to serve, followed by 10 years of special parole.   He argues that he has a severe psychological impairment, that up until the incident in question he had no criminal record and he claims to have no memory of the crime.   In addition, the petitioner asserts that he has the support of his family, that he is willing to get treatment and will refrain from any further assaultive behavior.

At the sentence review hearing the petitioner's mother spoke on his behalf.   She asked the Division to give him any appropriate consideration.

The petitioner's three adult siblings did not speak on the record at his sentence review hearing, but did submit a written statement.   In that written statement, dated October 24, 2011, the petitioner's siblings said that “[w]e have no trust that the events of that devastating night will not be repeated.”

The state strongly opposes any reduction in the sentence.   It argues that the petitioner abused drugs and alcohol for years and that his psychological problems do not explain or mitigate the brutality of his behavior.   According to the state and the trial court, the petitioner received all the consideration he was entitled to when the state changed the charge from murder to manslaughter and thereby allowed the petitioner to avoid a sentence of no less than 25 years or a maximum of 60 years in prison if convicted after trial.

The Division only has authority to modify a criminal sentence that is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” within the meaning of Practice Book Section 43–28.⁴  The sentence imposed by the trial court in this case is well within the parameters of Section 43–28.   The petitioner brutally beat his father to death in the presence of his mother without any apparent reason.   He has a history of psychological problems as well as a history of drug and alcohol abuse.   These problems, however, do not justify or excuse the horrible nature of the crime.   The petitioner is a danger to society.   The sentence he received is both appropriate and proportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–54a.   This crime carries a mandatory minimum 25 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 60 years..  FN1. See General Statutes Section 53a–54a.   This crime carries a mandatory minimum 25 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 60 years.

FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–55(a)(2).   This crime carries 1–20 year prison sentence, but does not include any mandatory minimum term of incarceration..  FN2. See General Statutes Section 53a–55(a)(2).   This crime carries 1–20 year prison sentence, but does not include any mandatory minimum term of incarceration.

FN3. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).   The Alford doctrine allows a defendant to plead guilty without admitting guilt.   In pleading guilty, however, the defendant acknowledges that the state's evidence against him is so strong that he is prepared to accept the entry of a guilty plea..  FN3. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).   The Alford doctrine allows a defendant to plead guilty without admitting guilt.   In pleading guilty, however, the defendant acknowledges that the state's evidence against him is so strong that he is prepared to accept the entry of a guilty plea.

FN4. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN4. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

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