From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Sinchak

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
Nov 23, 2004
2004 Ct. Sup. 17911 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

Opinion

No. CR92-207969

November 23, 2004


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION


The petitioner, Anthony J. Sinchak, was convicted after a jury trial. He was convicted of Murder, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and received a sentence of 60 years incarceration. The petitioner was also convicted of two counts of Kidnapping in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92(a) and received 18 years incarceration consecutive to each other and consecutive to the 60 years received for the crime of Murder. The total effective sentence was 95 years incarceration. This is the sentence the petitioner seeks to review.

The following facts are relevant to this case.

On July 28, 1992 Waterbury Police received a missing persons report on Kathy Gianni. Her family contacted police about her absence from her apartment. They told police that Kathy suspected a "hit" had been put out on her from an incident occurring on July 12, 1992.

Police records indicated that Ms. Gianni had reported that on July 12th there had been an altercation between members of the Helter Skelter Motorcycle Club and her ex-boyfriend, Julio Gonzalez. Apparently, some Helter Skelter members were arrested after a shootout when they tried to repossess a shotgun from Gonzalez.

On July 29, 1992 police interviewed Jo Orlandi, a bar manager and Kathy Gianni's best friend. The bar had been gutted by fire and Ms. Gianni's jacket and a rope clothesline were found inside the burnt building. Police also found bone fragments, blood stains, and hair.

Orlandi stated in a letter that on July 26th, she was leaving the bar with Gianni and Sinchak. She looked back when someone spoke and saw the petitioner point a .44 magnum gun at Gianni and shoot. She saw Gianni either jump or fall backwards. Then Sinchak shot Gianni several more times. At this point, Orlandi saw blood. She called for Sinchak to stop but he turned the gun on her and she ran and hid. Sinchak threatened Orlandi and another witness, Laura Ryan, that he wanted no witnesses, but they convinced him they would not tell. Sinchak ordered the two women into a car and drove them to his apartment in Torrington. All phones were disconnected at his place, and he put a bell on Orlandi to know if she moved. She reported that Sinchak took apart and got rid of the gun.

On July 27th, the petitioner allowed Orlandi and Laura Ryan to leave the apartment. Orlandi wrote that she wanted to call the police but she feared for her and her family's safety.

On August 2, 1992, Shelton Police informed Waterbury police about locating the body of a white female that had been wrapped in a sheet and dropped off in the woods. The victim had been shot in the head. Through the clothing and tattoos, the victim was identified as Kathy Gianni.

On August 4, 1992 Waterbury Police interviewed Laura Ryan who said that she and Jo Orlandi went to a Waterbury apartment after being released from Torrington. A Helter Skelter member came and threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone. She also reported seeing Sinchak and another member change clothes and put their old clothes in a garbage bag. The pair told her how they moved Gianni's body and broke her legs, then lit the bar on fire.

Counsel for the petitioner claims the sentence was excessive. He argues the pre-trial offer was thirty years, therefore the sentence imposed was disproportionate.

The petitioner addressed the Division and stated he felt the sentencing judge should have sentenced him on the offense, not just to be punitive.

The state argued this was a compelling case based upon eyewitness accounts of the murder. This clearly affected the sentencing court. This was a heinous and chilling crime. The victim had cooperated with the police and inculpated the petitioner and six other defendants. They were all members of the Helter Skelter motorcycle club. Mr. Sinchak went to great lengths to cover up the murder. The sentence was appropriate.

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 sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and the Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.

The sentencing court presided over all the testimony in this case. The court addressed that testimony at the sentencing hearing, "this court having heard all the evidence presented is of the opinion that the killing of Kathleen Gianni by you was a premeditated, heartless and cold-blooded murder. Also, the kidnapping of Jo Orlandi and Laura Ryan at gunpoint puts each of those two women in real and substantial fear of losing their own lives and, of course, denied them the opportunity to come to the aid of the victim, Kathleen Gianni."

Counsel for the petitioner argued that a thirty-year sentence apparently conveyed at pre-trial was a more appropriate sentence. This is clearly not a standard of review this Division is held to. The sentencing court was privy to the detailed, explicit testimony of a gangland execution. All the facts surrounding circumstances leading up to this offense were carefully considered by the sentencing court. Moreover, the sentencing court was well aware the petitioner's criminal history dated back to 1973 and was replete with crimes of violence. The court had no doubt Mr. Sinchak would never conform his behavior and sentenced him accordingly.

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.

Iannotti, J.

Miano, J.

Holden, J.

Iannotti, J., Miano, J., and Holden, J. participated in this decision.


Summaries of

State v. Sinchak

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
Nov 23, 2004
2004 Ct. Sup. 17911 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)
Case details for

State v. Sinchak

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ANTHONY J. SINCHAK

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury

Date published: Nov 23, 2004

Citations

2004 Ct. Sup. 17911 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

Citing Cases

State v. Sinchak

The sentence review division denied the defendant's request, however, and upheld his sentence. See State v.…

Sinchak v. Strange

The Sentence Review Division did not rule on that application—affirming Sinchak's sentence—until November 23,…