Court File and Parties
Citation: R. v. Sparks, 2007 ONCA 579 Date: 2007-08-27 Docket: C45604
Court of Appeal for Ontario Before: Simmons and Blair JJ.A. and McKinnon J. (Ad Hoc)
Between: Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) And Jeffrey Allen Sparks (Appellant)
Counsel: Richard Litkowski (duty counsel) for the appellant L. Bolton for the respondent
Heard: August 22, 2007
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Alan W. Bryant of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 21, 2006 and from the sentence imposed by Justice Bryant dated May 30, 2006.
Appeal Book Endorsement
Background
1The appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for breaking and entering, 18 months consecutive for dangerous driving and one year consecutive for possession of a stolen vehicle, for a total of 6 1/2 years imprisonment less 12 months credit for pre-sentence custody. He also received concurrent sentences for mischief, possession of burglary tools and failing to stop for police.
Grounds of Appeal
2The appellant claims that the trial judge erred in concluding that he (the appellant) had previously received a three year sentence for a single break and enter when in fact that sentence related to 14 charges, and in holding that there were no mitigating factors in his case such as destitution. The appellant also points to various cases in which other offenders with lengthy records received lesser sentences for breaking and entering and submits that the trial judge erred in failing to impose a sentence comparable to that received by others. In addition, the appellant claims that the trial judge erred by failing to take account of the totality principle, by imposing a sentence that was disproportionate and by failing to impose concurrent sentences for all of the offences.
Analysis
3We do not accept the appellant's submissions. As was noted by the trial judge, the appellant stole a vehicle, broke into a store, and then used the stolen vehicle to attempt to evade arrest. A police chase followed, during the course of that chase the appellant collided with another vehicle and the driver of that vehicle suffered psychological trauma. The appellant has a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1974 that includes 33 break and enters and three prior police chases involving dangerous driving. He is clearly a professional career criminal. His conduct in this case was planned (he had previously test driven the stolen vehicle to ensure that it would allow a speedy escape) and it endangered the life of both police officers and civilians.
4Given these circumstances, the trial judge was entitled to focus on the need for both specific and general deterrence and to impose significant sentences in relation to each element of the appellant's misconduct: possession of the stolen vehicle, breaking and entering and dangerous driving/fleeing from the police. While the total sentence imposed may be at the upper end of the range, in our view, it is not outside the range and does not offend the totality principle.
Disposition
5Leave to appeal sentence is granted but the sentence appeal is dismissed.