The appellant appealed his sentence of a six-month conditional sentence order and 18 months' probation for criminal harassment and four counts of committing an indecent act.
He argued the sentencing judge erred by ignoring expert opinions regarding his limited mental development and by improperly equating the public interest criterion for a conditional discharge with general deterrence.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered and weighed the expert evidence and appropriately balanced rehabilitation with general and specific deterrence.
The sentence was not demonstrably unfit.
