Opinion
HHBCR12265569
01-24-2017
State of Connecticut v. Guillermo Balbuena #321983
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Filed February 28, 2017
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner is Guillermo Balbuena. He was convicted after a jury trial of Conspiracy to Commit Murder. The court imposed a total effective sentence of 11 years to serve. It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.
The facts of this case are set forth in the Connecticut Appellate Court's decision affirming the underlying conviction. See State v. Balbuena, 168 Conn.App. 194, 144 A.3d 540 (September 2016).
The petitioner claims his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate pursuant to Practice Book § 43-28. Specifically, he claims that he was not present at the scene of the crime and that his brother, who was the shooter, has accepted full responsibility for the offense. In a letter to the Division, dated January 16, 2017, that the petitioner claimed that there was insufficient evidence to establish he engaged in the conspiracy because there is no video or DNA evidence to place him at the scene. He further claims that the witnesses who testified about his involvement in the offense were either contradictory or made false statements. He requests this panel to reduce his sentence to time served because he is facing deportation yet again. As the trial court noted, the petitioner had been convicted of a sexual assault in the third degree in 2005 and had been deported. At the time of the sentencing in this case, the petitioner, as a result of his prior criminal record and underlying conviction, was once again facing deportation.
In support of his application, the petitioner points to the sentences imposed on the codefendants in this case. After entering guilty pleas, the co-defendants received the following sentences: Mario Balbuena, brother and shooter, was convicted of assault in the first degree and sentenced to 12 years to serve; and Yari Balbuena was convicted of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree and received a sentence of 8 years to serve followed by 3 years of special parole. At the sentence review hearing, the petitioner maintained his innocence and requested that his sentence be reduced so he could be reunited with his kids and family.
The state argues that the petitioner, who was present and participated in what it termed a " wild west shoot out, " was sentenced at the lower end of the range. The petitioner had previously been convicted of sexual assault in the third degree and was deported. He subsequently re-entered the United States and was arrested for the underlying offense. The state noted that this case involved a retaliation for an earlier shooting and the nature of the conspiracy warranted a lengthy period of incarceration. The victim was shot in the face and sustained permanent injuries and scars. In imposing sentence, the trial court noted the petitioner's prior criminal record and his " inability to conform [himself] to the law." The trial court found the petitioner's claims of innocence, after the jury's finding of guilt, to " ring hollow" with the court. The trial court also took into consideration the sentences imposed on the co-conspirators.
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.
The Division finds there is nothing inappropriate or disproportionate about the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case. The petitioner, who was previously convicted of a serious offense, chose to participate in a violent offense which led to permanent injuries to the victim. While he denies any involvement in the offense, the evidence at trial established otherwise. Further, the Appellate Court rejected his claims of insufficient evidence and affirmed his conviction. See Balbuena, 168 Conn.App. at 199.
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.
The Sentence is Affirmed.
KAHN, J., HADDEN, J., and GOLD, J., participated in this decision.