2011 Ct. Sup. 15073
No. HHD CR00-105083Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
July 11, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
WHITE, J.
The petitioner is Mark Pascual. He voluntarily pleaded guilty to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, burglary in the first degree, larceny in the third degree and stealing a firearm. He also agreed to testify truthfully against his co-defendants at trial and to testify against a person in an unrelated criminal matter. In exchange for the petitioner’s guilty pleas and promise to cooperate with the state in other prosecutions, the state agreed to forego charging him with the crime of capital felony murder and exposing him to the death penalty. In addition, the parties agreed that both the state and defense were free to argue to the trial court for a sentence of incarceration between 25 and 110 years.
After hearing arguments by counsel and reviewing all the relevant information, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 80 years to serve.
The facts underlying the petitioner’s conviction are as follows. During December of 2000 the petitioner, who had romantic feelings for the victim’s girlfriend, hired two accomplices for the purposes of killing the victim so that the petitioner could pursue the girlfriend for himself. The petitioner and his accomplices discussed their murder plans, rehearsed the crime and procured weapons, ski masks and silencers in order to carry out their scheme. Thereafter, on December 13, 2000, the confederates went to the victim’s home late at night. As the petitioner waited outside the home and acted as a lookout, the two co-defendants entered the victim’s residence and shot him to death in his bed as he slept. After the victim was killed, the two codefendants reported their criminal misconduct to their leader, the petitioner, who then joined his partners in crime in the decedent’s home. The criminals then stole the dead victim’s money, watches and an antique firearm.
The police investigation ultimately led to the arrest of all three co-defendants. One of the petitioner’s co-defendants admitted his guilt CT Page 15074 to the charge of capital felony murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. The second co-defendant was tried and convicted for the crime of capital felony murder and was sentenced to death, plus 45 years and 3 months of incarceration.
The petitioner claims that his sentence is “inappropriate” and “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43-28[1] in light of his cooperation in prosecuting his co-defendants and in light of his testimony in an unrelated criminal case. He argues that other than his murder conviction, he has a minor criminal record that does not involve violent conduct; that he has a good family background; that he is a successful businessman; that he is remorseful for his conduct; and that he accepts responsibility for his crime.
The state strongly opposes any reduction in the sentence. It argues that the petitioner cooperated in the prosecution of his co-defendant and in that of another criminal defendant not out of altruism, but simply to save himself from a death sentence. It also points out that the petitioner planned the murder, paid his accomplices to kill the victim, obtained the implements used to carry out the heinous crime and did it all because he wanted to “eliminate the competition” in his pursuit of a woman. According to the state, the petitioner received all the consideration he was entitled to when he avoided the charge of capital felony murder by agreeing to cooperate in the prosecution of other criminal cases.
The Division, having carefully considered all the arguments and relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is appropriate, proportionate and fair. It is well within the parameters set out in Section 43-28. The petitioner planned and paid for the victim’s execution. He pleaded guilty to that horrendous crime in order to save himself from a death sentence, not because he felt any genuine remorse or accepted responsibility for his actions. He agreed to accept a sentence within a range of 25 and 110 years and the trial judge imposed a sentence well within that range. There is no persuasive reason to lower his sentence.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
White, J., Alexander, J. and Fischer, J. participated in this decision.
CT Page 15076