State of Connecticut v. 339578 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Oral Haines.   He was convicted by a jury of the following:

1. Sexual Assault in the First Degree, Use of Force Connecticut General Statutes Section 53a–70(a) with a penalty of up to twenty years.   His sentence was twenty years suspended after fifteen years with ten years probation.   Two years is a mandatory minimum.

2. Sexual Assault in the Third Degree, Sexual Intercourse with a person related to the defendant Connecticut General Statutes Section 53a–72(a)(2) (24 counts) with a penalty of up to five years on each count.   His sentence was five years consecutive and on all remaining counts five years concurrent.

His total effective sentence was twenty-five years suspended after twenty years with ten years of probation.   It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The facts are as follows.   The petitioner engaged in sexual conduct with the victim, his biological daughter, starting when she was approximately nine years old.   On at least twenty-four occasions between February 2002 and June of 2003 he engaged in sexual intercourse with her.   On those dates the victim was between the ages of twenty and twenty-two.   On one occasion the defendant compelled the victim to engage in sexual intercourse.

The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43–28.   The petitioner had an abusive father and was a special education student.   The petitioner argues he had a minimal criminal history and the sentence is excessive.

The state argues the crimes were horrific.   The abuse started when the victim was nine years old but because of the statute of limitations the state could not prosecute those abuses.   The petitioner has shown no remorse and takes no responsibility for his criminal behavior.

The victim submitted a letter to the division and counsel from her therapist.   The victim struggles with the aftermath of these crimes and experiences distressing flashbacks and nightmares.   She has insomnia and suffers from depression caused by the petitioner's abuse of her.

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 for an extended period of time had sexual intercourse with his daughter.   He has shown no remorse for his horrific actions.   The victim continues to suffer from the petitioner's sexual assaults.

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.

The Sentence is affirmed.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

Matthew E. Frechette, Judge

Fischer, J., Alexander, J., & Frechette, J. participated in this decision.

Fischer, Brian T., Alexander, Joan K., Frechette, Matthew E., J.s