2003 Ct. Sup. 12386
No. CR01-84081Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London
November 25, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
IANNOTTI, J.
BY THE DIVISION
The petitioner pled guilty to assault in the first degree and received a sentence of fourteen (14) years ESA seven (7) years with five (5) years of probation; robbery in the first degree and received fourteen (14) years ESA after seven (7) years with five (5) years of probation; and assault in the third degree and received one (1) year concurrent. The total effective sentence was fourteen (14) years ESA seven (7) years with five (5) years probation. It is from this sentence that the petitioner moves for sentence review.
On October 3, 2001 at approximately 11:00 p.m., the Montville, Connecticut State Police responded to a report of an assault on a sixteen-year-old male. Police transported the victim from his parents’ residence to a hospital to be treated for head trauma and multiple body contusions.
Police learned later that the victim and a friend were riding their bikes near the fire department when the petitioner and a car full of friends arrived on the scene. The petitioner and the victim’s friend were stepbrothers at one time. They told the friend to stay put and sought out the victim who was hiding in the woods and proceeded to pummel him. He was able to make his way home, but was hospitalized with severe injuries.
The defendants involved were Donatello, Bob Villano, Chris Belardo, Brian Gamble, Jared Pennell and David Kovalik, but each account differed as to the nature of the assault. The victim’s account included each of the boys participating in the assault and that the petitioner threw a bike on top of him. He did not know the reason for the assault, but they did not appear to be seeking money.
On May 11, 2001 at approximately 10:00 p.m., Montville police responded CT Page 12387 to an assault at a residential driveway. The victim and his father stated that the victim had been assaulted by five boys and the victim had chipped teeth, a bruised nose and a cut lip. The petitioner and his friends jumped out of a car and proceeded to assault the victim. The petitioner admitted he was involved in the assault.
Although the petitioner cannot seek review on the assault third because he received a one-year sentence, the facts are significant to both the petitioner’s argument as well as the State of Connecticut. The Court clearly factored the second incident into its sentence.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was only sixteen years old at the time. He agreed to a cap of 14 ESA 7 with a right to argue for less and received the aforementioned sentence. Petitioner acknowledges his conduct was disgraceful and realized that the victim nearly died. Counsel argues the petitioner was young at the time and alcohol was clearly a factor on both occasions. He goes on to state this was a tragic wake-up call for the petitioner and he deserves some reduction. Counsel points out that incarceration was the best thing that ever happened to his client and it has now served its purpose.
The State argues the petitioner was out on bond on the assault third when he committed the more serious offense. The petitioner was the driver of the car that came upon the two boys and he chased them into the woods. The victim’s last recollection was the petitioner throwing his bike on top of him. Lastly, while out on bond during the Part A incident, he was involved in a new matter where his friend was stabbed during a drug transaction. The State argues he deserves no reduction in his sentence.
The Court during the sentencing argument addressed the petitioner and pointed out that the victim was beaten unconscious by “. . . a group of bored and drunk boys . . . [t]hen you stole his money and ate food at Burger King . . . and this is not the first time the defendant has engaged in assaultive behavior.” The Court goes on to point out the victim almost died.
The petitioner is responsible for the condition of the victim. Ultimately, he must be held accountable for the victim’s injuries which were clearly life threatening. This certainly was tragic, but the petitioner was responsible for the tragedy.
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 CT Page 12388 inappropriate or disproportionate in 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 a sentence except in accordance with the provisions of the Connecticut Practice Book §43-28 et seq., and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
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 et seq.
The sentence imposed was neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
IANNOTTI, JUDGE.
HOLDEN, JUDGE.
IANNOTTI, Judge, MIANO, Judge, and HOLDEN, Judge participated in this decision. CT Page 12389