STATE v. PERRY, No. CR03 125308 (Jun. 1, 2010)

IANNOTTI, J.

The petitioner, Claude Perry, was convicted after a jury trial of Assault in the First Degree, a violation of C.G.S. § 53a-59(a)(1) and sentenced to eighteen years incarceration, and Criminal Attempt to Commit Assault in the First Degree, five years incarceration consecutive, followed by ten years of special parole. Total effective sentence is twenty-three years incarceration followed by ten years of special parole. It is from this sentence the petitioner seeks review.

The Ansonia Police responded to a residence on Myrtle Avenue on the report of a female unresponsive in the roadway in August 2003. When the police arrived the female was sitting on a porch chair with the offender's father and she stated that Perry had stabbed her with her own pen knife. She had considerable blood loss and numerous head wounds.

The pair had gone to Perry's home and were in the basement. When she tried to leave, he choked her and stabbed her in the head. He took her rings and threw her to the floor then threatened to choke her with a towel if she screamed.

Her injuries include a partially collapsed right lung requiring a chest tube and numerous wounds which were all considered life threatening. An arrest warrant was issued and he was extradited from criminal court in New York on October 22, 2003.

Counsel for the petitioner argued the court sentenced Mr. Perry as if he committed two separate acts and he should have received a concurrent sentence. The petitioner would have liked a DNA test. Counsel believes his client should have been sentenced to Whiting Forensic Institute as he had an unfair evaluation. Counsel requests that the sentences run concurrently. CT Page 11758

The state informed the Division that the sentencing court considered all the evidence. The victim was stabbed seven times. The victim attempted to flee. The sentence imposed was proportionate.

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

The victim received life threatening injuries. The petitioner's record dates back to 1981 and includes more than twenty convictions. Many of them were for crimes of violence. The sentencing court commented that the petitioner could be the poster child for the three strikes law. The sentence was fair.

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.

WHITE, J.

ALEXANDER, J.

Iannotti, J., White, J., and Alexander, J. participated in this decision.