COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Pardu, Benotto and Brown JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Kentrell Williams
Appellant
Kentrell Williams, in person
Jill Presser, duty counsel
Mabel Lai, for the respondent
Heard: December 8, 2016
On appeal from the conviction entered on August 5, 2015 and the sentence imposed on November 26, 2015 by Justice D. Gray of the Superior Court of Justice, without a jury.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, firearm offences and attempt to obstruct justice. He received a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment: 5 ½ concurrent for the assault and firearms; 2 ½ years consecutive for the obstruction of justice.
2He appeals his convictions of obstruction of justice and the 2 ½ year consecutive sentence imposed.
3The appellant entered a hotel room where his girlfriend, a sex worker, was in an apparent dispute with a customer. An altercation occurred, a gun was discharged and the appellant was charged with attempted murder.
4A key issue at trial was who had the gun: the appellant or the customer.
5During the preliminary inquiry, the appellant passed a note to his girlfriend – then a co-accused. In it, he asked her to say the gun was the customer’s. The note said she should read it in private and destroy it. She gave it to her lawyer. These facts are not in dispute.
Conviction appeal
6The appellant submits on his own behalf that he did not know that his girlfriend was going to testify therefore the requisite intent was not established and the conviction should be set aside.
7We do not accept this submission.
8The trial judge considered all the circumstances of the note-passing including the fact that it was in court, during the preliminary inquiry. It was open to him to infer that the appellant had the requisite intent and he made that finding of fact. There is no basis for appellate intervention.
Sentence
9With the assistance of duty counsel, the appellant submits that the trial judge erred in principle when he imposed a 2 ½ year sentence.
10First, she submits it was excessive, harsh and outside the appropriate range.
11Second, she submits that the sentencing reasons reflect that the trial judge double-counted the length of the sentence.
12We conclude that the sentence, while substantial was not unfit. The maximum sentence is 10 years. We see no error in principle.
13The trial judge correctly noted that obstruction of justice goes to the very heart and foundation of our criminal justice system.
14The appellant, through duty counsel also submits that the sentencing judge double-counted. His reasons indicate that he considered the conduct of each offence to be an aggravating factor in the other offences.
15In our view, the impugned sections of the reasons reflect nothing more than – in the trial judge’s view – all the facts overlap and must be taken together. We do not accept that he double-counted. It was open to him to consider the seriousness of the offence which underlay the attempt to obstruct.
16Lastly, the appellant submitted on his own behalf that it was unfair that he received 2 ½ years when he thought the Crown was only asking for 1 year in the context of a 2 year maximum. In fact, the Crown was incorrect. As pointed out by the trial judge, the maximum sentence is 10 years.
17The appellant submits that had he known he might get 2 ½ years he may have taken a different course of action – especially with a 10-year maximum.
18We see no unfairness here given that the Crown’s request for 1 year on the obstruct charge was in the context of a submission for a 10 year global sentence.
19For these reasons, the appeal as to conviction is dismissed.
20Leave to appeal the sentence is granted but the appeal is dismissed.
