Marco Mendicino

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal assumed, without deciding, that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to distinguish between the appropriate period of incarceration for a custodial versus a conditional sentence.

However, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed was fit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, mischief, and theft of electricity, as well as his 90-day intermittent sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding he had control over the prohibited substance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to infer control given the obviousness of the grow operation and the appellant's 37-minute stay in the residence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the size and sophistication of the operation.

The appellant appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed for introducing narcotics into a penitentiary.

The trial judge had accepted a joint submission from experienced counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's unblemished past and remorse, the serious aggravating factor of introducing drugs into a penitentiary meant the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed an Order of Committal for Extradition.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no basis to interfere with the decision of the lower court judge and dismissed the appeal.