2004 Ct. Sup. 10811
No. CR01-173845Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
July 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE HENRY CRESPO
MIANO, HOLDEN, IANNOTTI, JUDGES.
On April 11, 2003, Henry Crespo (Petitioner), entered pleas of guilty to Robbery in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the First Degree. The court imposed a net effective sentence of 12 years incarceration execution suspended after 6 years to be followed by a period of probation. In the same proceeding the court suspended th entire sentence in order to allow petitioner to enter a residential treatment program in New York state for a period of 2 years or until successful completion of the program. In effect, the probation took effect April 11, 2003, with a condition of the probation being the successful completion of the program. In approximately 19 days after commencing the program the petitioner advised that he no longer wanted the program. After a hearing on the violation, the trial court apparently rejected petitioner’s claims and found petitioner in violation. Petitioner’s probation was revoked and the court imposed a sentence of 12 years execution suspended after 6 years incarceration with 59 months and one week of probation. It is this sentence petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
At the hearing before this Division counsel for petitioner argued that the underlying reason for petitioner not wishing to participate in the rehabilitation program was due to the physical labor required by the program which caused him much pain due to a pre-existing back injury.
The petitioner addressed the Division, accepted responsibility and advised that he is involved in programs while in corrections.
The counsel for the state countered by representing to the Division that petitioner had some 30 prior convictions. Counsel opined that the sentence imposed was appropriate.
The petitioner’s criminal history shows multiple convictions including a prior Robbery in the First Degree, and multiple periods of prior probation in which some were deemed unsatisfactory wherein petitioner was CT Page 10812 violated in 1994, 1998 and 2000.
It is noteworthy that the underlying crime for which petitioner was placed on probation which is the subject of this proceeding was a robbery wherein petitioner had a firearm or displayed what he represented by his words or conduct to be a firearm and take property from an individual.
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 Statute § 51-194, et seq.
Taking into consideration the serious underlying charge for which petitioner was placed on probation, petitioner’s refusal to complete the rehabilitation program and petitioner’s previous violations of probation, it is clear, as the sentencing judge enunciated, that further probation without an intervening period of incarceration is not a viable alternative.
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 Sec. 43-23 et seq.
THE SENTENCE IS AFFIRMED.
Miano, J.
Holden, J.
Iannotti, J.
Miano, J., Holden, J., and Iannotti, J., participated in this decision. CT Page 10813