COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Juriansz, MacFarland and Pepall JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Salim Richard Glasner
Appellant
Salim Richard Glasner, in person
Scott C. Hutchison, duty counsel
Thomas C. Lemon, for the respondent
Heard: April 17, 2013
On appeal from the sentence imposed on November 29, 2011 by Justice Denis Power of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
Reasons for Decision
1The appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of conspiring to traffic cocaine and oxycodone, committing an indictable offence for the benefit of a criminal organization, and failing to comply with probation orders.
2The sentencing judge sentenced the appellant to three and a half years imprisonment on both of the conspiracy to traffic counts and to 60 days imprisonment for each of three failures to comply with probation. All five of these sentences were to run concurrently. He also sentenced the appellant to three and a half years on the criminal organization charge, such sentence to be served consecutively as required by s. 467.14 of the Code. This resulted in a global sentence of seven years. He gave the appellant credit for 24 months of presentence custody on a two for one basis.
3The appellant appeals his sentence. The issue of parity was the focus of the appellant’s submissions. In particular, he argued that the sentencing judge failed to give parity with the sentence of a co-accused, Steve Mavis.
Sentences of Co-Accused
4Ramez Srouji, Billy Joe Krieger, Mavis and the appellant were involved in the sale of drugs. The charges they faced, and their subsequent convictions, arose from an undercover investigation into their activities. The various offences were committed between January 1 and October 15, 2009.
5Initially, the appellant was charged jointly with Srouji and Krieger in a 74-count indictment. Srouji, the head of the criminal organization, pleaded guilty and received a ten year global sentence pursuant to a joint submission. The sentencing judge in that case described the sentence as being the minimum period of incarceration that was appropriate.
6Krieger, who was also a principal of the criminal organization, pleaded guilty to charges similar to those of the appellant and received a global sentence of seven years. The transcript of his sentencing proceeding was unavailable before the sentencing judge. Before this court, the appellant elected to proceed without the Krieger transcript.
7Mavis was lower in the chain of command than Srouji and Krieger. Mavis was arrested on June 19, 2009 and found in possession of 17.6 grams of crack cocaine. He pleaded guilty to possession and received a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. In November 2009, he was charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine between January 1, 2009 and October 15, 2009, and that between those same dates, he committed an indictable offence for the benefit of a criminal organization. In August 2010, he pleaded guilty to the two additional charges. The convictions all arose from Mavis’ involvement in the sale of cocaine in Ottawa and Vancouver between May 28 and July 11, 2009.
8The judge who sentenced Mavis, was convinced that while Mavis had a significant criminal record, he had made a genuine decision to change his life. The judge stated that “absent Mr. Mavis’ efforts at rehabilitation, the sentence proposed by the Crown of five to seven years in jail would have been the appropriate sentence to address the principles of general and specific deterrence and denunciation”. He decided that a sentence of four and a half years including pre-sentence custody of five to six weeks was appropriate for the conspiracy count and four years for the involvement in a criminal organization. They were ordered to be served concurrently.
Sentencing Hearing
9At the appellant’s sentencing hearing, defence counsel submitted that the proper range for the appellant was between three and seven years imprisonment. He submitted that the appropriate sentence would be a global sentence of four and a half years imprisonment, with two for one credit for 24 months of pre-sentence custody.
10The Crown sought a global sentence of eight years less time spent in pre-trial custody on a one-to-one basis. The Crown submitted, and the sentencing judge accepted, that Mavis’ sentence should be considered to be an effective global sentence of six years imprisonment consisting of the 18 months plus the four and a half years.
Discussion
11In my view, the sentencing judge made no error in principle; the sentence was within the appropriate range; and the principle of parity was properly considered and applied. In crafting a fit sentence, the sentencing judge considered the details of the sentences imposed on the co-accuseds.
12It was open to him to treat Mavis’ convictions as arising from the same series of events and to give the appellant a longer sentence than that of Mavis. Unlike Mavis, the appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking in oxycodone and to three charges of failure to comply. Also unlike Mavis, the appellant’s guilty plea came at a later stage in the proceedings. Moreover, in this case, the sentencing judge properly recognized that the criminal organization offence required a consecutive sentence.
13The sentencing judge considered the seriousness of the offences, the appellant’s lengthy and relevant criminal record that included convictions for drug offences and possession of firearms, and that he had spent 20 of his 42 years in custody. Furthermore, he continued to commit these offences while he was serving an intermittent sentence.
14In my view, the sentencing judge made no error in principle and I see no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed. The sentence was fit.
15Leave to appeal sentence is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Released: May 14, 2013 “RGJ” “S. Pepall J.A.”
“I agree R.G. Juriansz J.A.”
“I agree J. MacFarland J.A.”