The appellant sought a reduction in his six-and-a-half-year sentence for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.
He argued the trial judge failed to adequately consider his difficult upbringing, that the sentence was comparatively too high, and that the lack of cash seized indicated his motivation was addiction rather than profit.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasons, noting the admitted quantity of fentanyl supported an inference of trafficking, including a financial motive, and that the sentence was within the appropriate range.
The appeal was dismissed.
