R. v. Little, 2015 ONCA 454

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Little, 2015 ONCA 454 Date: 2015-06-19 Docket: C59751

Before: Laskin, Gillese and van Rensburg JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Appellant

and

Cody Little Respondent

Counsel: Mary-Ellen Hurman, for the appellant Delmar Doucette, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: June 16, 2015

On appeal from the sentence imposed on November 21, 2014 by Justice Kelly A. Gorman of the Superior Court of Justice sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

1This is a Crown sentence appeal against a global sentence of six years (less credit pre-sentence custody) for three robberies of taxi drivers committed by the respondent and two others. The Crown makes three submissions:

(1) The trial judge erred in her calculation of credit for pre-sentence custody;

(2) A global sentence of six years was demonstrably unfit; and

(3) The trial judge erred by making the sentence for obstruct justice concurrent rather than consecutive.

(1) Pre-sentence custody

2The respondent concedes that the trial judge erred in her calculation of credit for pre-sentence custody. The correct credit is 11 months.

(2) The six year sentence

3In our view the trial judge did not err in imposing a six-year sentence. She recognized the importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for robbery. And she recognized the aggravating considerations surrounding these robberies. In her words:

The aggravating factors, of course, are the fact that weapons were used, the violence inflicted upon Mr. Stanley, the obvious terror the victims felt, and the cold, calculated manner in which the offences were carried out.

4Nonetheless, the trial judge concluded that the ten-year sentence sought by the Crown at trial and on appeal "would crush" the respondent. That was a reasonable conclusion in the light of the respondent's antecedents, his prospects for rehabilitation and his youth – he was 20 years old when he committed these offences. For us to interfere would show no deference to the trial judge's sentencing discretion.

(3) Concurrent versus consecutive sentence for the obstruct justice conviction

5The trial judge imposed a concurrent sentence for the obstruct justice conviction. She was entitled to do so in the exercise of her discretion. Indeed, she was invited to do so by the trial Crown. We therefore decline to interfere with that exercise of her discretion.

6Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted, and the appeal is allowed only to the extent of varying the credit for pre-sentence custody from 33 months to 11 months, thus resulting in an actual sentence of 61 months. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.