State of Connecticut v. 251500 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Tito Waden.   The petitioner was found guilty after a court trial on his Violation of Probation.   The petitioner was on probation as a result of a conviction on Sexual Assault in the First Degree, victim under 13 years old.   He was sentenced to twenty years, execution suspended after ten years, thirty years probation in 1999.

He was sentenced to eight years, eleven months to serve on this Violation of Probation.   His total exposure on the Violation of Probation was eight years eleven months.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   This is the petitioner's third Violation of Probation.   His second violation was based on missing meetings and not attending classes.   This violation was found as the petitioner failed to attend to his treatment plan and failed to stay in good standing with said plan.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner claims this was only a technical violation and an appropriate sentence would be five years.

The state argues the sentence was appropriate and asks the division to affirm the sentence.   The underlying charges and the condition of treatment were breached in prior findings of violation of his terms of probation.

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.   This was his third Violation of Probation.   The petitioner cannot pick and choose when he is going to comply with his treatment plan.

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.