Opinion
No. CR98-177629
June 29, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISON
The petitioner, Mr. Pierce, seeks review of his sentence imposed after a jury trial. Mr. Pierce was convicted of Kidnapping in the Second Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-94 and received a sentence of 20 years incarceration; Burglary in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101(a)(1) and received a sentence of 10 years suspended after 5 years incarceration to be served consecutively to the 20-year Kidnapping sentence for a total effective sentence of 30 years incarceration suspended after serving 25 years and thereafter a 5-year period of probation.
The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner's conviction resulted from him having abducted a woman in a parking lot by hiding in the back seat of her minivan, threatening her with a knife, ordering her to drive him to another town and directing her to follow him into a wooded area. Upon the woman's refusal to accompany the petitioner, he fled into the wooded area. The victim identified the petitioner in a photo lineup. The petitioner made admissions to the police. See State v. Pierce, 269 Conn. 442 (2004)
Counsel for the petitioner contends the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive in light of the age of the petitioner, and in light of the nature of the offense. The victim did not suffer any physical injury and one can only speculate as to whether or not the petitioner intended any assaultive conduct and hence should not be a sentencing factor. Further the petitioner has never been convicted of any sexual offense. Counsel concluded with a request to modify the 25 years incarceration.
Counsel for the state contends the sentence is appropriate when held up in the light of the character of the offender and the CT Page 9453-ay nature of the offense. Counsel for the state related that the petitioner had been released from prison just 30 days before he committed the two class B felonies, which are the subject of this review. Counsel contends that the petitioner's behavior has not been modified in spite of extensive psychological intervention and he clearly represents a threat to society.
Counsel for the state further relates the victim, through her resolve, may have avoided being sexually assaulted because the petitioner meets the clinical criteria for diagnosis as a sexual sadist. The counsel for the state concluded by urging the panel to at the very least affirm the sentence of the trial court.
The petitioner addressed the panel and expressed concern for what he believes was the improper use of confidential information obtained through a release executed by the petitioner. He did express remorse and reminded the panel that he was never convicted of any sexual offense.
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in its 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 the Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
The gravamen of the petitioner's claim is that the trial court's reliance on his psychological and social history and not the nature of the offenses for which he was convicted was inappropriate and as a result the sentence imposed should be modified.
It is a fundamental sentencing principle that a sentencing judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, and largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider or the source from which it may come. United State v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972) (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Huey, 199 Conn. 121, 126-27, 505 A.2d 1242 (1986). CT Page 9453-bz
The record reveals the trial court prior to imposing sentence clearly considered the factors as delineated in our scope of review.
The trial court stated:
"The contents of the Presentence Report, paint a picture of you Mr. Pierce, that is about as deplorable as any I have ever had occasion to read.
And, I have reviewed dozens, and dozens of Presentence Reports during my career as a jurist.
You are a sexual deviate. You have a criminal record going back a few years, felony record.
The report is replete with your antisocial behavior.
And, perhaps most important of all, your unwillingness to seek the kind of help that you need."
Reviewing the record before us and having considered the arguments of counsel and comments by the petitioner, and given the gravity of the nature of the offenses and character and history and age of the petitioner, we find the sentence is neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Holden, J.
O'Keefe, J.
Miano, J.
Holden, J., O'Keefe, J., and Miano, J. participated in this decision. CT Page 9453-ba