Opinion
HHBCR11260607
10-23-2018
STATE of Connecticut v. Jan GAWLIK #138888
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
File Date: November 27, 2018
James P. Ginocchio, J., Joan K. Alexander, J., and Elpedio N. Vitale, J., participated in this decision.
OPINION
The petitioner, Jan Gawlick, was found guilty after a jury trial of the following crimes: Murder and Assault in the Third Degree-Elderly Other Victim. The Honorable Frank D’Addabbo sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 60 years to serve.
It is from this sentence that the petitioner seeks review.
The facts underlying the convictions are as follows: the petitioner is the son of the 91-year-old victim, he lived on the first floor of a two-family home in which his parents resided on the second floor. On October 14, 2011, his mother woke to walk her dog in the morning and left her husband on the couch. When she returned her son, in a drug induced rage, came up to the second floor behind her, forced his way into the home and stabbed her husband in the chest with a samurai sword. During the ensuing struggle, he also assaulted his elderly mother. He then obtained another knife from the kitchen and continued assaulting his father. His mother fled to the home of a neighbor and called the police who arrived within a short time. The victim who was also grossly mutilated died on the kitchen floor as a result of the traumatic injuries inflicted by the petitioner. See State v. Jan G., 329 Conn. 465 (2018).
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence imposed by the court was inappropriate and disproportionate. Counsel argued that the petitioner, prior to this singular and horrible event, was a loving and caring provider to his elderly parents. There was no history of hostility between the petitioner and his parents. This criminal act was the product of a drug induced rage, an act that came out of nowhere. Counsel for the petitioner is seeking a reduced sentence.
The petitioner addressed the court. He maintained his innocence and expressed no memory of the events that led to his conviction. The petitioner claimed that because of medical issues he was prescribed medication that eventually led to a serious drug addiction. Additionally, he argued that this crime was the result of a demonic possession. He still maintains his innocence and is asking for a reduced sentence.
Counsel for the state argued that, in his long career as a state’s attorney, he has never come across a crime with this level of abject violence and shear brutality. Counsel for the state also argued that the sentence imposed should be affirmed.
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 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 Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., and Connecticut General Statute § 51-194 et seq. Taking into consideration the nature of this most shocking and horrific crime, the sentence imposed is neither inappropriate nor disproportionate. In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing court’s actions were in accordance with Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.