Opinion
HHDCR13164357
04-24-2018
STATE of Connecticut v. Danovan THORPE #397599
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
File Date: August 16, 2018
OPINION
Arthur C. Hadden, J.
The petitioner, Danovan Thorpe, was found guilty, after a trial by jury, of two counts of Risk of Injury to a Minor, each in violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 53-21(a)(2). As a result of those convictions the petitioner was exposed to the imposition of a maximum sentence of twenty years of imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years of imprisonment on each count. In the event that the court imposed consecutive sentences, the petitioner, therefore, had an exposure to a maximum sentence of forty years of imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment. After hearing argument, the court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-five years of imprisonment to be followed by fifteen years of special parole. It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
The facts underlying the petitioner’s convictions were detailed in the Appellate Court decision of State v Danovan T., 176 Conn.App. 637 (2017) and in the pre-sentence report. The facts, which the jury reasonably could have found include the follows: On June 5, 2013 the victim was seven years old and was living with her mother, the defendant, who was her step father, and a younger step sister in a home in Enfield. During that night, the defendant entered the girls’ bedroom, removed the victim’s pants and began touching and scratching her genitals and digitally penetrated her. The victim awoke during this assault and grabbed the defendant’s arm. Despite this, the defendant continued to abuse the victim. Eventually, the defendant stopped his assault, pulled up the victim’s pants and left the room. The victim reported this incident to her mother during the following morning. During a forensic interview the victim stated that the defendant had touched her in a similar manner on two prior occasions approximately one month earlier.
At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence was inappropriate and disproportionate in that, although the conduct of the defendant was reprehensible, the defendant’s background was positive. Specifically, it was pointed out that the defendant had no prior criminal record, had served in the Navy, had obtained an Associates Degree and had maintained stable employment. In addition, counsel argued that since the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, the jury must have found that the state proved sexual contact rather than sexual penetration.
The State responded to these arguments by emphasizing the nature of the conduct of the defendant and the devastating impact that the conduct had on the victim and her family. The sentencing court had commented that the defendant, a predator, had victimized a seven-year-old girl, who would now suffer a lifetime worth of damage. 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, isolative and denunciatory purpose for which the sentence was intended." Practice Book Section 43-28.
The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book Section 43-23 et seq. and General Statutes Section 51-194 et seq.
The Division finds that the sentence imposed in this case is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate. The nature of the defendant’s conduct requires significant incarceration in order to: appropriately punish the defendant; deter the defendant; and deter all others who may contemplate victimizing children.
THE SENTENCE IS AFFIRMED.