Opinion
No. UWY CR07-360519
April 30, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The petitioner, Joseph Vecchiarelli, voluntarily entered guilty pleas to six counts of Interfering with a Cemetery and agreed to a "cap" sentence of 20 years suspended after 10 years and 5 years of probation. As part of his agreement to plead guilty, the petitioner reserved the right to argue for a reduced sentence. After hearing the parties' comments and reviewing the petitioner's criminal history, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 18 years suspended after 8 years followed by 5 years of probation.
See General Statutes Section 53a-218(a)(2). The maximum penalty for this crime is ten years in prison.
The facts underlying the petitioner's sentence are as follows. On April 25, 2007 the Waterbury police received a report regarding vandalism and thefts from a local cemetery. Their investigation into the report showed that the petitioner had broken into a number of mausoleums and caskets and had done thousands of dollars in damage to the final resting places of the decedents. The petitioner stole jewelry from some of the dead, removed gold teeth from others and disturbed the remains of some of the deceased by breaking off and scattering various parts of their bodies.
The petitioner seeks a reduction in the non-suspended portion of his sentence from 8 to 5 years. He argues that his macabre behavior was motivated by drug addiction and he apologizes. At his sentence review hearing, the petitioner also argued that his sentence is "inappropriate" or "disproportionate" in light of the sentences received by others who were convicted of the same offense. In support of this claim, the petitioner submitted data from the Department of Corrections (DOC) web site regarding other persons who have served or are serving sentences for Interfering with a Cemetery.
The state strongly objects to any reduction in the sentence for several reasons. First, it points out that the petitioner voluntarily pleaded guilty to six counts of the crime charged and agreed to be sentenced within the recommended "cap" sentence of 20 years suspended after 10 years followed by 5 years of probation. The state asserts that the petitioner in fact received a sentence within the range that he agreed to. Second, the state argues that the petitioner's ghoulish misconduct is so disrespectful to the dead and so offensive to society that there is a deterrence value in leaving his sentence unchanged. Finally, the state asserts that the petitioner's reliance on the DOC data is misplaced. It argues that the petitioner fails to supply the factual underpinnings of those crimes; fails to mention anything about the perpetrator's criminal records or personal backgrounds; and fails to indicate the impact of the crime on any surviving family members.
The Division only has the authority to modify criminal sentences which are "inappropriate" or "disproportionate" within the meaning of Practice Book Section 43-28. After carefully considering the claims made by both the petitioner and the state, the Division agrees with the arguments asserted by the state and finds that the sentence imposed is well within the parameters outlined by Section 43-28. The trial court imposed a sentence that is reasonable, proportionate and appropriate in light of the seriousness of the crime and the harm done to both the living and the dead due to the petitioner's ghoulish conduct. Moreover, the DOC data submitted by the petitioner does not justify any change in his sentence. Those raw statistics say nothing about the facts involved in each case referenced, nor do they say anything about the criminal histories of the perpetrators or indicate the impact of the crimes on the families whose loved ones were victimized by "grave robbers." In addition, the petitioner never made his statistical argument to the trial court, therefore it is impermissible for the Division to consider that information in reviewing his sentence. See State v. Monaco, 27 Conn.Sup. 219 (1967).
Section 43-28 indicates that the Division shall "determine whether the sentence 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, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended."
The sentence is AFFIRMED.