State of Connecticut v. 165082 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner in this matter is Milton Campbell.   He was convicted by a jury of sexual assault in the first degree and sentenced to 25 years of incarceration (including 2 years mandatory minimum).¹  The petitioner appealed his conviction, but the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.   See State v. Campbell, 141 Conn.App. 55 aff'd. (2013).

The facts underlying the petitioner's crime are outlined in detail in the Appellate Court decision.   For purposes of this opinion, however, the facts are stated as follows.   The petitioner met the female victim of his crime in November of 2009 when the two were enrolled in an outpatient Bridgeport drug treatment facility.   The petitioner and the victim agreed to go to the petitioner's home where the two got high together on cocaine and alcohol.   When the two were done getting high the victim attempted to leave, but the petitioner blocked her.   He then forced her to engage in both vaginal and anal intercourse while he held a sharp object against her throat.   The victim subsequently escaped when the petitioner “zoned out” and reported the incident to the police.   The petitioner was ultimately arrested for the crime and convicted.

The petitioner claims that the sentence imposed by the trial court violates the parameters of Practice Book Section 43–28 ² because he was wrongly convicted.   He asserts that the victim's testimony should have been rejected by the jury because it was inconsistent with her pretrial statements to the police.   He also points out that the jury failed to reach a verdict on a kidnapping charge against him.

The state argues that the sentence imposed is well within the parameters of Section 43–28 and should remain unchanged.   It argues that the petitioner has two prior convictions for sexual assault in the first degree he committed in 1993 and in 1998.   In fact, the state argues, at the time the petitioner committed the crime for which he has applied for sentence review, he was on probation for the 1998 sexual assault.

The Division, having carefully reviewed the pertinent information and considered the parties' argument, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is clearly appropriate and proportionate and should remain unchanged.   The petitioner is clearly a sexual predator, having been convicted multiple times for first degree sexual assault.   He has a felony record that stretches back to the 1990s and he refuses to accept responsibility for his crime.   There is no valid reason to reduce his sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White

Joan K. Alexander

Brian T. Fischer

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The petitioner was sentenced on December 15, 2010, but the trial court stayed the imposition of the sentence until sometime in January of 2011.   The specific January 2011 sentencing date is unclear, but it is clear that it occurred within thirty days from the filing of the petitioner's sentence review application..  FN1. The petitioner was sentenced on December 15, 2010, but the trial court stayed the imposition of the sentence until sometime in January of 2011.   The specific January 2011 sentencing date is unclear, but it is clear that it occurred within thirty days from the filing of the petitioner's sentence review application.

FN2. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN2. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

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