Summary
affirming Mr. Luther's sentences as "neither inappropriate or disproportionate"
Summary of this case from Luther v. HuntOpinion
Nos. A22M CR 02-122949, CR02-122950, CR02-122951, CR02-122952, AAN CR02-122556, CR04-222687
March 25, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Michael Luther, entered guilty pleas to Sexual Assault in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-70(a)(2) and received a sentence of 20 years ESA 15 (10 years mm) 25 years probation, Sexual Assault in the Second Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-71 and received a sentence of 10 years ESA 5 years (9 mos. mm) 5 years probation, consecutive to the Sexual Assault in the First Degree, four counts of Risk of Injury to a Minor, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-21(a)(2) and received 7 years incarceration on each count concurrent with each other and concurrent with counts one and two. The total effective sentence imposed is 30 years ESA 20 years (10 years 9 mos. mm) 25 years probation. It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.
The following facts are derived from the arrest warrant affidavits.
CR02-0122556
On September 23, 2002, Victim 1 (age 9) disclosed to a teacher that he was sexually victimized by Luther. Victim 1 came home from school and informed Luther of his disclosure. In the past, Luther had threatened to kill himself in order to gain Victim 1's compliance with sexual acts. At approximately 11:00 p.m. Luther went to the victim's home to say goodbye to Victim 1. Luther was yelling goodbye while the victim's parents were trying to get him to leave. Victim 1 was awakened by the commotion. Officers responded to Victim 1's home. Luther attempted to commit suicide and assaulted an officer with a knife. Luther was successfully disarmed and transported to a psychiatric facility.
On September 24, 2002, Victim 1 and his family members were individually interviewed with the assistance of the Department of Children and Families and Milford Rape Crisis Center. Victim 1's parents feared for their safety and that of their children. They allowed the child Victim 1 to be interviewed.
It was disclosed that Luther had touched Victim 1's genitals. In the presence of the victim, Luther masturbated to the point of ejaculation in the woods and he would masturbate without ejaculation, if they were in Victim 1's home. Luther would make the victim watch him masturbate.
On October 2, 2002, the victim reported to the Yale Sexual Abuse Clinic with his father for a forensic interview. The victim's father was upset and gave the State Police Investigator two envelopes, one was addressed to Victim 1 and the other one was addressed to Victim 1's parents. The letters were delivered by the Offender's father, Anthony Luther, to Victim 1's grandfather's home while he was caring for the children. Luther had also telephoned Victim 1's home from the hospital, as confirmed by the caller ID.
Both letters rendered apologies for Luther's behavior. Luther wrote that his sexual relationship began approximately one year before the disclosure. Luther wrote "I do not want you to think of me as a pedophile or predator because that's the last thing that I am." Luther stated he was "in love" with the victim and that Victim 1 "did a good job convincing me that he loved me." Luther stated that he was keeping his promise to Victim 1 that he would tell Victim 1 first, if he was going to commit suicide.
In addition, Luther wrote "I'm not mad at all. I am just upset with myself for not ending our relationship sooner." He wrote about "hanging out" with the victim in the future. Luther specified, "The part that bothers me most is the fact that I was planning to end our sexual relationship once I turned 16 because of certain laws." In addition, he expressed "I know that you've wanted to be `just friends' the past few weeks, so I guess that explains why we were not doing anything." Both letters blamed Victim 1 for the "love" Luther felt for the victim and ended with the hope to maintain their friendship or relationship with the victim. In closing, Luther stated that he has feelings for the victim and it will not change.
During the forensic interview, Victim 1 disclosed that the molestation began when Victim 1 moved to the neighborhood at approximately the age of 4 or 5. Luther threatened to kill himself to gain the victim's compliance. Luther put the victim's penis in his mouth approximately 14 to 15 times. Luther also put his penis in Victim 1's mouth. Luther has performed anal sex on the minor, three or more times. Luther would become erect and put lotion on his penis before performing anal sex.
CT Page 4890
CR04-0222687
Michael Luther, at the age of 17, was incarcerated for pending charges under multiple dockets regarding his sexual behaviors with minors in his neighborhood. Luther was incarcerated by the Department of Correction at Manson Youth Institute. Victim-DOC (age 14) was originally incarcerated in the infirmary and was eventually relocated to the Mental Health Housing Unit. While at the Mental Health Housing Unit, Luther befriended Victim-DOC. The two began exchanging letters. Eventually, the letters became sexual in nature. Luther asked the victim if he was interested in him and expressed a desire to perform oral sex on Victim-DOC.On March 20, 2004, Victim-DOC was in the shower and Luther was on the telephone near the shower stalls. Luther stated that he wanted to have oral sex with Victim-DOC. Victim-DOC was uncomfortable at first. Luther groomed Victim-DOC and convinced him that no one would care about their sexual contact. Luther stepped into the shower, performed fellatio on Victim-DOC. The victim was uncomfortable and pulled away after approximately 10 seconds.
After the victimization of the minor, Luther wrote notes to the victim. The State Police Investigating Officer retrieved the notes. One note described in detail Luther's sexually explicit fantasies regarding the victim. In addition, the note discussed the "9 year old I (Luther) was involved with." The second note asked Victim-DOC to deny the offense if questioned and Luther apologized for his behavior.
CR02-0122949
The Shelton Police conducted an investigation regarding Michael Luther's sexually preying on juveniles in his immediate neighborhood. During the investigation, Victim 3 (age 12) was identified as a possible victim. On October 4, 2002, the investigating officer contacted Victim 3's parents and explained the status of the investigation. The parents of Victim 3 expressed concern about Luther hanging around with young boys in the neighborhood. Victim 3's parents allowed police to speak to Victim 3 in their living room.
During the interview with Victim 3, the officer asked the victim if he knew why the officer was there. The victim stated that the visit was in regard to Michael Luther. When Victim 3 was questioned about his personal interactions with Luther he became withdrawn. Victim 3 was asked if he played alone with Luther. Victim 3 stated "not really, but sometimes Mike would yell out, `hey, look at this,'" while the two were alone together. Victim 3 was asked if he knew what private parts were. The victim stated yes. During the interview, Victim 3 reported that his private parts had been touched by Luther. The victim was referred to the Yale Sexual Abuse Clinic for an interview.
On October 17, 2002, a forensic interview was conducted and recorded with the victim. The results of the interview were consistent with the October 4, 2002 interview. Michael Luther exposed himself to Victim 3 and touched Victim 3 over his clothes on five to six occasions. Luther threatened to hurt the victim each time that he touched Victim 3. The victimization of Victim 3 occurred while the victim was in fifth and sixth grades.
CR02-0122950
The Shelton Police conducted an investigation regarding Michael Luther's sexually preying on juveniles in his immediate neighborhood. During the investigation, Victim 4 was identified as a potential victim. The police investigator responded to the home of Victim 4 (age 14). Police met with the victim's mother and explained the purpose for their visit.
Victim 4's mother allowed the police to interview the victim. Victim 4 is deaf and is able to read lips. The services of a sign language interpreter were offered by the investigating officer. Victim 4 stated that he wanted to tell his version of the offense with his mother serving as the sign language interpreter.
Victim 4 reported that he was aware of the reason why the investigator was there. Victim 4 elaborated that he was being interviewed because "Mike was touching the boys in the area, Mike is gay." Victim 4 identified himself, Victim 1 and two other males as victims of Michael Luther.
Victim 4 reported three separate offenses involving Luther and himself. One offense occurred in Victim 1's home. While Victim 1 was upstairs with his sister, Victim 4 and Luther were in the basement of Victim 1's home. Luther pulled down his pants and exposed and waved his penis at the victim.
During a separate incident, Luther was at Victim 4's, along with Victim 1 and Victim 1's juvenile sister. Michael Luther asked Victim 4 if he masturbated. Luther exposed his erect penis to Victim 4 and propositioned Victim 4 to engage in oral sex with Luther, by motioning the act of oral sex. Luther attempted to touch Victim 4 over his clothes but Victim 4 pushed Luther away.
Victim 4 also reported that he observed Luther nibbling on Victim 1's ear and giving him hickeys on his back. Victim 4 stated that Luther told him that he was going to rape Victim 1 and threatened to kill Victim 4 if he told.
CR02-0122951
The Shelton Police conducted an investigation regarding Michael Luther's sexually preying on juveniles in his immediate neighborhood. During the investigation, Victim 5 (age 13) and his brother Victim 2 were identified as potential victims. On November 26, 2002, Victim 5 and his father reported to the Shelton Police Department.
Victim 5's father allowed the victim to be interviewed by the investigating officer. Victim 5 provided background information and described his friendship with the offender. Victim 5 reported that he had not been playing with Luther, since Luther "started to get different." The victim stated that Luther asked him "to get drunk and have sex with him." Victim 5 reported that Luther attempted to touch the victim's penis over his clothes with his hand, between 10 and 20 times.
CR02-0122952
The Shelton Police conducted an investigation regarding Michael Luther's sexually preying on juveniles in his immediate neighborhood. During the investigation, Victim 2 (age 9) and his brother Victim 5 were identified as potential victims. Shelton Police notified the victim's mother, who agreed to cooperate. The investigating officer, Victim 2, and his parents met at the Milford Rape Crisis Center.
With the consent of his parents, the officer interviewed Victim 2. Victim 2 described his relationship with Luther and the other children in his neighborhood. Victim 2 disclosed that Luther touched his penis (referred to by Victim 2 as his "thingy"), inside of Victim 2's pants on two occasions. Both times, Luther and Victim 2 were riding their bikes together and Luther took him for a walk into the woods, which was down the street from their house.
Luther threatened to hurt Victim 2's family if he disclosed the offense. In addition, Luther threatened to kill himself if Victim 2 did not allow Luther to touch the victim's penis.
Counsel for the petitioner does not minimize the affect of his client on the young victims. However, he emphasizes this was a juvenile transfer that resulted in an open plea in the adult court. Accordingly, counsel believes this sentence is not in line with other young people who have committed similar offenses. Counsel requests a reduction to bring the sentence commensurate with similarly situated individuals.
The petitioner addressed the Division and requested any consideration to help me forward and receive treatment.
The state argued the petitioner had no ability to control his own behavior. The sentencing court certainly considered the petitioner's age, but also the public's safety. He is clearly a sex offender.
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 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 § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
The sentencing court had the difficult task of balancing between the age of the petitioner, the ages of the victims and the seriousness of the offenses. The court commented on how "[t]he victims may not recover from the offenses." The court went on to state ". . . the sentence must be severe as this affected so many people . . ." Clearly, the court considered all the sentencing factors before handing down a difficult sentence on such a young defendant (15 at the time of the offenses). An appropriate sentence is balanced from case to case. The court performed that balancing test by considering all the appropriate sentencing factors before imposing such a difficult sentence. A sentence where the court considered the defendant's age, the offenses, and the ages of the victims.
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