5 total
Sentence appeal dismissed; 70-month sentence for importing cocaine based on joint submission upheld.
The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of importing cocaine, the second of which was committed while on judicial interim release for the first.
He was sentenced to a total of 70 months' imprisonment based on a joint submission.
On appeal, he argued the sentence did not sufficiently reflect his cooperation with authorities and was based on an incorrect sentencing range.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with a sentence imposed following a joint submission, especially given the aggravating factor of committing the second offence while on release.
Appeal from conviction and sentence dismissed as abandoned.
The appellant appealed from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned in accordance with the filed Notice of Abandonment.
Sentence appeal allowed and sentence reduced to time served due to error in finding breach of trust.
The appellant appealed his sentence.
The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in characterizing the case as a breach of trust based on the backdating of a certificate of exemption.
This erroneous assumption improperly influenced the sentencing judge's decision that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and likely affected the quantum of the sentence.
The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served.
Sentence appeal dismissed as the sentence was fit and there was no error in principle.
The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by Justice K. Ross.
The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the sentencing and held that the sentence was fit.
Leave to appeal the sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
New trial ordered where trial judge failed to provide jury with requested playback of accused's testimony.
The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a prohibited weapon.
During deliberations, the jury requested a playback of a specific portion of the appellant's testimony.
The trial judge refused the request, expressing confusion and instructing the jury to continue discussing.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to respond directly to the jury's question and denying them a review of evidence central to the appellant's credibility.
The convictions for the cocaine offences were set aside and a new trial was ordered.