Opinion
No. NNH CR04-28889
April 30, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Eric Kennedy, petitioner, entered a plea of guilty to one count of Assault in the First Degree in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(3), with a penalty of one to twenty years and one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53-21 with a penalty of one to ten years. The sentencing agreement was a maximum sentence of twenty-five years execution suspended after twenty years to serve followed by five years probation with minimum sentence of twenty years execution suspended after fifteen years to serve followed by five years probation. The court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years execution suspended after twenty years to serve followed by five years probation. It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
The incident for which the petitioner entered his pleas of guilty were the result of a January 2004 incident in which the petitioner inflicted head injuries upon a healthy ten-month-old infant. As a result of this conduct, the child has arrested development at a nine-to twelve-month age level, is missing a portion of his skull, and is blind in one eye. The child will require care for the rest of his life and is permanently disabled.
At the hearing before the Division, counsel for petitioner indicated that it was not "anticipated" that the maximum part of the plea bargain would be imposed. Counsel argued that petitioner has always maintained his innocence as it relates to this incident. The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that he believed he deserved a much lower sentence than even the agreed-upon sentencing range. Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing and spoke of the extensive injuries suffered by the victim and the fact that the child suffered a "lifetime penalty."
The sentencing court considered all aspects of the record before it in a thorough manner and took into consideration the petitioner's background, his criminal history, and the nature of offense. The court indicated that "the only one who deserves any mercy today is [the victim]" and that the petitioner deserved "no consideration" given the severity of the injuries. (Transcript at page 16.)
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." Practice Book § 43-28.
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 Statutes § 51-194 et seq. Taking into consideration the petitioner's background as well as the serious nature of the instant offense, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.