Opinion
No. TTD CR08-93002
October 3, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
BY THE DIVISION
The petitioner, Dean Campanaro, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of Sexual Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71(a)(1), with a penalty of not less than nine months up to twenty years; two counts of Sexual Assault in the Fourth Degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a(a)(1)(B) with a penalty of one to five years; one count of Illegal Sexual Contact — Risk of Injury to a Minor, in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(2), with a penalty of one to twenty years; one count of Delivery of Alcohol to a Minor, in violation of General Statutes § 30-86, with a penalty of not more than one year and/or a one thousand dollar fine; one count of Enticing a Minor by Computer, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-90a, with a penalty of one to five years; and, one count of Risk of Injury to a Minor, in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(1), with a penalty of one to ten years. The petitioner was acquitted of fifteen additional counts. As a result of the eight counts for which he was convicted, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty years execution suspended after fourteen years to serve followed by ten years of probation. It is this sentence that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed.
The charges brought against the petitioner relate to the sexual abuse he inflicted upon a fourteen-year-old female. At the time of the abuse, the petitioner was forty-two years old. The petitioner's daughter and the minor were friends. The petitioner was also the girl's softball coach. The petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with the girl and supplied her with alcohol. The two exchanged sexually based emails, texts, and photos. During the trial, the petitioner minimized his involvement in the incident.
At the hearing before the Division, counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the sentence was "disproportionate" and that the petitioner's sentences should run concurrently with each other and not consecutively. The petitioner addressed the Division and indicated that he accepted "full responsibility" for the incident and that he was "sorry" for what had happened.
Counsel for the State addressed the Division at the hearing. The State indicated that the evidence established that the petitioner had exploited the victim and that the victim had been on the stand three days during the trial. The victim's mother read a letter to the Division which detailed the impact the offense had on her daughter. She called the crime "despicable."
The trial court had an opportunity to observe all of the circumstances that the petitioner now seeks to use as his basis for review. The court was aware of the fifteen acquittals by the jury. The court found the petitioner's actions to be "not a momentary lapse in judgment, but clear, calculated and manipulative behavior." (Transcript page 81.) The court found that the petitioner "attempted to manipulate the court and the jury throughout this case." (Transcript page 82.) The court determined that a "substantial" sentence was necessary given the nature of the factual allegations.
Pursuant to 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."
The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and General Statutes § 51-194, et seq. Taking into consideration the nature of these crimes, the sentence imposed is appropriate and not disproportionate. In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court's actions were in accordance with Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Fischer, J.
White, J.
Alexander, J., Fischer, J., White, J. participated in this decision.