Enzo Rondinelli

The appellant appealed a sentence of 13 years' incarceration imposed by the trial judge.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence that exceeded the Crown's position by two years without providing the parties an opportunity to make further submissions.

The Court of Appeal found this constituted an error in principle.

However, the court determined that the sentence imposed was entirely fit given the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, upholding the 13-year sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault entered on June 18, 2013.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to subpoena certain witnesses and lead evidence of negative forensic test results, and (2) that the trial judge erred by not providing a W.D.-like instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either argument and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence of five years' imprisonment for possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana and fentanyl.

The drugs were intended to be smuggled into a penal institution where the appellant was already incarcerated for prior trafficking convictions.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's conclusion, holding that the sentence was well within the appropriate range, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and four counts of aggravated assault after firing a semi-automatic weapon outside a bar, killing an innocent bystander.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility set at 22 years.

On appeal, he challenged his convictions based on alleged errors in the jury charge regarding witness credibility, oath-helping, post-offence conduct, and eyewitness identification.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately consider his circumstances as an Aboriginal offender and the jury's recommendations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions and concluding the 22-year parole ineligibility period was fit given the egregious circumstances of the offence and the appellant's background.