State of Connecticut v. 405561 (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner, Michael Rios, entered a guilty plea to the charge of Manslaughter in the First Degree in violation of C.G.S. Section 53a–55(a)(3).  The plea agreement called for the imposition of a sentence no greater than 20 years, the execution of which would be suspended after 14 years and period of probation of 5 years.  After hearing argument, the court imposed a sentence of 20 years, the execution of which was suspended after 14 years and a period of probation of 5 years.  It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.

The incident for which the petitioner was convicted involved the abuse and subsequent death of a 13–month–old child.  The child, while in the care of the petitioner, suffered horrific injuries to the head and brain.  Following heroic efforts, which included extensive surgery, by medical personnel, the child expired.  The evidence would suggest that the passing was accompanied by substantial distress and pain.  All of this, caused and continues to cause, significant trauma to the victim's family.

At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence was inappropriate in that the petitioner had no prior criminal record, had exhibited positive character traits throughout his life, had expressed great remorse for the consequences of his actions and had suffered significant punishment as a consequence of his conviction and the great anguish which he continues to experience.  Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the sentence imposed was disproportionate with sentences imposed in similar cases.  Counsel for the State argued that the sentence was not inappropriate under the circumstances of this case, including the evidence which suggested that the child was subjected to an extensive beating.  The Assistant State's Attorney also asserted that the sentence imposed was not disproportionate given the extreme nature of the injuries inflicted in this case.

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, isolative and denunciatory purpose for which the sentence was intended.”  Practice Book Section 43–28.

The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book Section 43–23 et seq. and General Statutes Section 51–194 et seq.  Taking into consideration the petitioner's background, the nature of the instant offense, and the charge for which he stands convicted, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hadden, J.

Fischer, J.

Ginocchio, J.

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

Hadden, Arthur C., Fischer Brian T., Ginocchio, James P., J.s