State of Connecticut v. 371244 (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Daniel Castro.   On November 17, 2010, the offender pled guilty under the Alford doctrine to substitute charge of Manslaughter in the First Degree and Assault in the First Degree.   The recommended sentence was 25 years with the right to argue for less.   He received a total effective sentence of 25 years.

On June 4, 2004 at approximately 9:00 p.m., the Willimantic Police responded to a fight at a park.   Two males with stab wounds were taken to a hospital and one victim was pronounced as deceased, the second victim had non-life threatening wounds.   Witnesses told police that the offender and his girlfriend were watching a soccer game along with their family when five males engaged Castro in an argument and then attacked him.   Castro grabbed Victim # 2 and struck him and then chased Victim # 1 and also struck him with a weapon.   He then left the scene.   On September 18, 2009, the police arrested the offender when he returned from Mexico.   He explained that he was confronted by the males and then they attacked him.   Castro reported that he picked up a metal instrument which was approximately 5 inches in length, however he maintained that he did not use the object during the assault.   The pre-sentence investigation reveals that the knife used during the attack was somewhere between six and eight inches in length.

Counsel for the petitioner argued at the time of sentencing that the petitioner was a hard working family man.   He moved to the United States from Mexico basically for employment opportunities and in fact he worked at Cosgrove Egg Farm for approximately two years prior to the incident in question.   With regard to the incident, Counsel for the petitioner argued that this was a tragedy on both sides as it was senseless and avoidable.   The facts are:  Daniel, his girlfriend and his mother had met in a local community Park for the purpose of watching Daniel play soccer.   After he finished the game he socialized with his friends and family members, there was some evidence that he consumed some alcohol.   At some time after his game, witnesses observed a van with possibly four, five or six occupants.   The occupants proceeded to exit the van, engaged in a verbal altercation with the petitioner, and then attacked him.   Counsel argued that the petitioner had been attacked by these individuals in the past and that on the date in question he feared for his own life as well as for the safety of his mother and girlfriend.   Counsel for the petitioner is asking for a reduced sentence.

Counsel for the state argued that the petitioner received a significant benefit in, so far as the original charge of murder was reduced to manslaughter.   Because of the nature and severity of the offense, the state argued at the time of sentencing and before the Division that the twenty-five years was an appropriate sentence.   The state argued that the offender's action showed that he intended to cause at least serious injury, if not death, to both these individuals.   The state also argued that one of the victims was running away so this was not a case of self-defense and that the petitioner struck one of the victims directly in the chest.   The deceased victim was twenty-three years old;  the victim who survived was fifteen years old.

After the offense, the petitioner fled the United States and started a new life in Mexico where he got married, had a child, and was employed.   He was eventually extradited from Mexico to the United States.   The state concluded that the petitioner is a danger to society and twenty-five years is the appropriate sentence.

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 Statutes § 51–194 et seq.

Upon a review of the entire record, it is unclear as to what precipitated the altercation between the petitioner and his attackers.   What is clear from the record is that the petitioner was at the park for legitimate reasons.   He was there with his girlfriend and his mother for the sole purpose of playing soccer and socializing after the game.   There is nothing to suggest that he was a violent man or a member of any gang.   It is also clear from the record that the petitioner was attacked by several occupants from the van, that he was outnumbered.   Although the petitioner had a right to defend himself, it is clear from the record that he overstepped the boundaries of self-defense and recklessly caused the death of one of his attackers and injuries to another.   For that conduct, whether it was the result of alcohol consumption or the heat of battle, the petitioner deserved a significant period of incarceration.   However, in light of these circumstances and after a careful review of the record, the Division finds that the sentence of twenty-five years is excessive and disproportionate to others similarly situated.

Accordingly, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 51–196, the Division remands the matter to the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Windham at Danielson and the Superior Court shall re-sentence the petitioner as follows:

Docket # CR09 0139649

Manslaughter in the First Degree (as corrected on October 17, 2014)—Twenty years

Assault in the First Degree—Five years

The sentences are to run concurrent with each other.

Therefore the total effective sentence for the petitioner is Twenty years.

The Sentence is Modified.

James P. Ginocchio, Judge

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Joan K. Alexander, Judge

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

Ginocchio, James P., Fischer, Brian T., Alexander, Joan K., J.s