State of Connecticut v. 377933 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Charles Persaud.   On docket number 10–256181 the petitioner entered a guilty plea to Violation of a Protection Order and Burglary II. The petitioner and the State agreed to a sentence as follows, eleven years execution suspended after nine years with a right to argue for less.   On docket number 10–254023 he entered a guilty plea to Reckless Endangerment 1st and Unlawful Restraint 1st.

The petitioner was sentenced on the first docket matter to eleven years suspended after six years, five years probation.   On the second docket he was sentenced to five years to run concurrent.

It is from these sentences the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   On December 12, 2010 the petitioner drove his car into the lower entry of his home.   He was attempting to retrieve a check in the home.   There was a protective order in place at that time.

On July 29, 2010 the petitioner restrained his wife and held a knife to her.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   He argues he made mistakes in his actions and is very sorry for what he did.   The petitioner has numerous medical issues.

The state argues the sentence should be increased to eleven suspended after nine years.   The petitioner did not comply with the six-year cap and should receive a higher sentence.

Pursuant to Connecticut 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.”   The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43–23 et seq. and Connecticut General Statute § 51–194 et seq.

The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case.   The petitioner was sentenced within the cap structure he agreed to.   He placed his wife and others in extreme danger by his actions.

In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43–23 et seq.   The Sentence is Affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Gary White, Judge

Kari Dooley, Judge

Fischer, J., White, J., & Dooley, J. participated in this decision.

Fischer, Brian T., White, Gary J., Dooley, Kari A., Js.