State of Connecticut v. 383222 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Nyasy Razermera.   He entered a guilty plea to Illegal Possession of Child Pornography in the First Degree in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a–196d with a maximum penalty of twenty years with a five-year mandatory minimum.

Pursuant to an agreement between the state and the petitioner the sentence would be twenty years, suspended after ten years with a right to argue for less.

The court sentenced him to twenty years, suspended after ten years with five years probation.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   On May 5, 2011 the Connecticut State Police executed a search warrant at the location where the petitioner rented a room.   His computer was searched pursuant to the warrant and he possessed over 5,000 files of child pornography.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner claims he cooperated fully with police and admitted having the files on his computer.   He had no criminal record and was gainfully employed.   The petitioner argues five years is an appropriate sentence.

The state argues that 5,000 is an immense amount of child pornography.   There was reliable evidence from Arizona that he did admit to a sexual touching of his daughter.   This admission was given to a counselor.   The state requests the sentence be affirmed.

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.   As the trial court indicated “the downloading of pornography exploits children and damages them.”   The petitioner was sentenced within the parameters of the agreement.

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 § 43–28.

The Sentence is Affirmed.

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

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