State of Connecticut v. 243105 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Anthony Velez, petitioner, was convicted after a trial to a jury of one count of Murder, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a, with a penalty of twenty-five to sixty years;  one count of Burglary in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–101(a)(2), with a penalty of one to twenty years;  and one count of Criminal Mischief in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–115, with a penalty of one to five years.   In addition, the court found the petitioner in Violation of Probation, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–32, in which he owed three years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of sixty years to serve.   It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted arose out of a domestic incident where the petitioner stabbed the victim multiple times.¹

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence imposed should be reduced because it was a “spontaneous act.”   The petitioner addressed the Division and stated that he had suffered from mental health issue all his life.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the nature of the incident and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.   The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, his criminal history, and the nature of the offense.   The court indicated that the petitioner had taken the life of the victim “in a violent, brutal, cruel, and merciless manner.”  (Transcript at page 21.)

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 offense, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

White, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See State v. Velez, 113 Conn.App. 347 (2009)..  FN1. See State v. Velez, 113 Conn.App. 347 (2009).

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