COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Applicant/Appellant) v. ROMAN SEMIONOV (Respondent)
BEFORE: DOHERTY, SHARPE and LANG JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Randy Schwartz for the appellant Peter Lindsay for the respondent
HEARD: December 9, 2005 RELEASED ORALLY: December 9, 2005
On appeal from the sentenced entered by Justice Russell Otter of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 8, 2005.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The respondent seeks leave to appeal the conditional sentence imposed at trial.
2The Crown contends that a conditional sentence is manifestly inadequate given the number and seriousness of the offences to which the respondent pleaded guilty. He pleaded guilty to three robberies, all of which involved the use of a weapon and a charge of dangerous driving. The dangerous driving offence arose out of the respondent’s attempt to escape the police after the commission of the third robbery.
3We agree with the Crown that the offences to which the respondent pleaded guilty were serious and that the principles of general deterrence and denunciation were important considerations on sentencing.
4The trial judge was alive to the seriousness of these offences, the participation of the respondent in the offences, and the need to give effect to the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. The Crown does not allege any error in principle in the trial judge’s reasons.
5There were also significant mitigating factors relevant to this offender which the trial judge was also obligated to take into consideration. These included the following:
- the respondent was nineteen when he committed the first of the offences and twenty when he committed the last one. He had no criminal record.
- the respondent had been on strict bail conditions amounting to virtual house arrest for the three and a half years that this case proceeded through the system prior to sentencing. He had not breached any of the terms.
- the respondent had worked very hard with the strong support of his parents, colleagues and friends to rehabilitate himself during the three and a half years prior to sentencing. Those efforts had been successful on many different fronts. There was little likelihood that the respondent would commit any further offences.
6This court has repeatedly said that sentencing is a very individualized process. Those words are very true in a case like this.
7Where there is no error in principle, this court will defer to the sentence imposed by the trial judge unless it is manifestly inadequate. The trial judge in this case had a difficult task. His reasons demonstrate a careful consideration of all of the relevant factors and a careful attempt to balance the competing interests at stake in the sentencing proceeding. He ultimately chose to impose a sentence that would promote the continued rehabilitation of the respondent and thereby afford long term protection to the community. We note that the wisdom of the trial judge’s choice as to the appropriate sentence is supported by the positive conduct of the respondent since sentencing. He has continued the rehabilitative process and all signs indicate that the respondent will become a productive and law abiding member of the community.
8This was certainly an appropriate case for the Crown to bring to this court and we grant leave to appeal. However, in the end, we dismiss the appeal.
“Doherty J.A.”
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“S.E. Lang J.A.”
