State v. Sinchak
205 Conn. App. 346
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- Defendant Anthony Sinchak was charged with murder and two counts of first-degree kidnapping; he pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury.
- At a January 1995 judicial pretrial conference Judge Kulawiz offered a 30-year plea to murder; Sinchak rejected the offer and it was withdrawn.
- A different judge (Murray, J.) presided at a month-long trial; the jury convicted Sinchak of murder and both kidnappings.
- At sentencing Judge Murray imposed consecutive terms (60 years for murder; 18 years on each kidnapping) for an effective 96-year sentence, after reviewing a recent PSI and victim impact statements and noting Sinchak’s extensive violent criminal history and lack of remorse.
- Sinchak later moved to correct an illegal sentence, claiming the 96-year term was vindictive punishment for rejecting the 30-year plea; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed. The sentence review division had earlier upheld the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 96‑year sentence was vindictive/illegal for rejecting pretrial plea | Sinchak: 96 years far exceeds the 30‑year offer, creating an inference of vindictiveness for exercising the right to trial | State: No evidence Murray acted vindictively; Murray relied on trial evidence, PSI, victims’ impact, and different judges were involved | Denied — no presumption or proof of vindictiveness; sentence based on proper factors |
| Whether Pearce presumption of vindictiveness applies | Sinchak: disparity supports an inference akin to Pearce | State: Pearce presumption inapplicable (not a resentencing after successful appeal; different circumstances) | Pearce does not apply; defendant must prove actual vindictiveness under totality of circumstances |
| Whether sentencing judge had to expressly disavow retaliatory motive | Sinchak: Murray’s failure to expressly disavow leaves inference unrebutted | State: No need to disavow where record shows nonvindictive reasons for sentencing | Not required here — facts supplied legitimate, nonvindictive reasons; no duty to sua sponte disclaim motive |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (establishes rebuttable presumption of judicial vindictiveness when defendant is resentenced after retrial following successful appeal)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (limits Pearce presumption; presumption not applicable where circumstances do not create reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness)
- Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (where presumption does not apply, defendant must prove actual vindictiveness)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (presumption may be overcome by objective information justifying increased sentence)
- State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494 (approving practice of plea negotiations before one judge and trial/sentencing by another to protect impartiality)
- State v. Coleman, 242 Conn. 523 (under supervisory authority, trial court should explain reasons for greater sentence after plea withdrawal when timely requested)
- State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23 (augmentation of sentence based solely on defendant’s exercise of right to trial is improper)