State of Connecticut v. 359480 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Claudio Cejas, petitioner, was convicted after a trial to a jury of one count of Sexual Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–72a(a)(1), with a penalty of one to ten years;  and, two counts of Risk of Injury to a Minor—Illegal Sexual Contact, in violation of General Statutes § 53–21(a)(2), with a penalty of one to twenty years.   The court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-five years execution suspended after seventeen years to serve followed by a period of ten years probation.   It is this sentence which the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted arose out of a complaint by the petitioner's granddaughter.   The evidence established the petitioner had penile-vaginal contact with the girl when she was ten years old.   The petitioner denied the allegations.¹

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner indicated that the jury had found the petitioner not guilty of sexual abuse as it related to one of the two dates that had been alleged by the State.   Counsel requested that the Division ran the petitioner's sentences concurrently and not consecutively.   The petitioner addressed the Division and also requested that his sentence be reduced based on the complicated family problems that he described.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division and spoke of the serious nature of the incident and the petitioner's lack of remorse.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background and age, his lack of a criminal history, and the nature of the offense.   The court indicated that this was “an extremely serious matter ․ deserving of an equally serious sentence.”  (Transcript at pages 34.)

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.   The Division finds that the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Dooley, J.

Fischer, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn.App. 601 (2010)..  FN1. See State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn.App. 601 (2010).

Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., Dooley, Kari A, J.s