State of Connecticut v. 264032 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Alex Hechaverra.   In 1999 he was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the third degree.   The petitioner received a total effective sentence of 20 years suspended after 2 years and 9 months, followed by a period of probation.   Once the petitioner was released from incarceration and began his period of probation he violated his probation three times, including the violation of probation that is the subject of his sentence review application in this matter.   In lieu of having a violation of probation hearing, the petitioner entered an open plea, thereby exposing himself to 17 years and 3 months of incarceration.

After hearing the arguments of the parties and reviewing all of the information relevant to original crime, the petitioner's history on probation, his background and the newest criminal allegations against him, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 5 years to serve followed by 10 years of special parole.

The facts underlying the violation of probation are as follows.   When the petitioner was fifteen years old he sexually assaulted a four-year-old.   Upon starting his probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment, comply with electronic monitoring and to refrain from violating the law.   The petitioner, however, violated his probation by using drugs, failing to comply with electronic monitoring and assaulting his pregnant girlfriend.   Upon the first violation the petitioner was not incarcerated, but rather returned to community supervision.   The second time the petitioner was violated he was warned by the trial court that the next time he was violated he would be sent to prison.   Thereafter the petitioner violated his probation a third time when he was arrested on the domestic assault against his girlfriend.

The petitioner claims that his sentence of 5 years and 10 years of special parole is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book 43–28 ¹ in light of his age at the time of the original crime, the fact that some of his violations are “technical” in nature and his need for rehabilitation.   At his sentence review hearing the petitioner, through counsel, argued that he had complied with the requirement that he receive sex offender treatment and had, for the most part, performed well on probation.

The state argues that the sentence should remain as is because the petitioner's conduct demonstrates his refusal to follow court orders, accept community supervision and his disregard for the criminal law.   The state asked the trial court to impose a sentence of 10 years to serve.

The Division, after carefully considering the relevant arguments and information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters set out in Section 43–28.   When imposing the sentence the trial court gave ample consideration to the petitioner's youth at the time of the original crime, his history of probation violations and his most recent criminal conduct.   The petitioner received a sentence that was significantly less than what the state asked for and the trial court considered all the mitigating factors that his trial counsel mentioned.   There is no good reason to further reduce the sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

Elpedio N. Vitale, J.

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

FOOTNOTES

FN1. 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.”.  FN1. 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., Fischer, Brian T., Vitale, Elpedio N., J.s