State of Connecticut v. 82168 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

David Jones, petitioner, was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70(a)(2), with a penalty of not less than ten years to twenty-five years;  and one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor, 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-nine years to serve followed by ten years of special parole.   It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted involved the sexual assault of a minor female from the ages of six to eight years old.   The petitioner was an individual with whom the complainant's family stayed and who had access to the child while the child's father worked.   The victim's mother was deceased.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner argued that the sentence imposed was “inappropriate” and “tantamount to a life sentence” given the petitioner's age, fifty-nine years old.   Counsel requested that the Division impose a sentence of ten years to serve followed by twenty years of special parole.   The petitioner did not address the Division.   The victim submitted a letter to the Division describing the trauma that the abuse had caused her and she requested that the trial court's sentence stay the same.   Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the circumstances of this conviction and the significant impact that the petitioner's actions had on this child.

The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background as well as his criminal history.   The court found that the acts of the petitioner “require[d] the imposition of a lengthy sentence.”  (Transcript at page 64.)

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.   Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the nature of these offenses, the sentence imposed was appropriate and not disproportionate.   The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Alexander, J.

Fischer, J.

White, J.

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

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