Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-10000647 DATE: 20240829 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – ENRIQUE MARTINEZ-REYNOSA

Counsel: Ethan Garber, for the Crown Marcel Buchler and Randal Baran, for Enrique Martinez-Reynosa

HEARD at Toronto: July 15, 2024

Notice of Restriction on Publication

Pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the complainant or a witness may not be published, broadcasted, or transmitted in any manner.

J.K. Penman J.

A Overview

[1] Mr. Martinez and the complainant, A.S., were co-workers and friends. On July 12, 2018, after a night of drinking with other friends and co-workers, Mr. Martinez, the complainant, and two co-workers returned to the complainant’s apartment and continued drinking.

[2] A.S. blacked out around 1:45am and her next memory was at approximately 8:30am to Mr. Martinez having sex with her. A.S. fell asleep again and woke up around 10:00am with Mr. Martinez touching her and again having sex with her. A.S. told police that she was in no position to consent to any sexual activity.

[3] On March 3rd, 2024, Mr. Martinez was found guilty by a jury of two counts of sexual assault. I must now determine a fit sentence.

[4] Mr. Garber, for the Crown, submits that the appropriate sentence is four-and one-half years, taking into account the mitigating factors of Mr. Martinez’s restrictive bail conditions, pre-sentence custody and considering the principle of totality.

[5] Mr. Buchler and Mr. Baran on behalf of Mr. Martinez submit that a sentence of eighteen months is appropriate considering his pre-sentence custody, restrictive bail conditions and considering the mitigating and aggravating factors.

[6] The issues for me to decide in this case are as follows:

a. What is the appropriate sentence given the aggravating and mitigating factors?

b. How much credit should Mr. Martinez be given for his time on restrictive bail conditions, and pre-sentence custody?

[7] For the reasons that follow, I find that an appropriate global sentence in this case is four years in custody. I will further reduce the sentence to 3 years to reflect the Summers credit of 273 days, and the mitigating factors related to the harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre and his restrictive bail conditions.

i) Circumstances of the Offence

[8] Mr. Martinez and the complainant were co-workers at the Ford assembly plant in Oakville, although both were ordinarily resident in the United States. A.S. was 24 years old, and Mr. Martinez was 42 years old. Mr. Martinez was on another team, but in a supervisory role.

[9] In the weeks leading up to the sexual assaults, Mr. Martinez had been messaging the complainant about getting together, often with references to alcohol. These messages came across as flirtatious and made A.S. uncomfortable. A.S. did not feel as though she could tell him to stop or speak up about it, given Mr. Martinez’s more senior role in the company.

[10] On July 12, 2018, a plan was made for a group including A.S., Mr. Martinez, his girlfriend Hannah, Terrence Hui, and Wain Yeung to meet for drinks at a bar. Prior to going to the bar, A.S. had two ‘hits’ of marijuana. Once at the bar, A.S. drank approximately four shots of Jamieson and had three beers. A.S. described things starting to get “fuzzy”. The group decided to leave the bar and go to A.S.’s apartment to continue drinking.

[11] While walking back, A.S. picked up a traffic cone and walked with it while giggling. A.S. did not have a memory of this. Hotel video surveillance captured the group in the elevator, and A.S. appears intoxicated.

[12] Once at the apartment, A.S. drank two shots of tequila and had a hit of marijuana. Things began to fade very quickly for A.S. Around 1:30am-145am, Mr. Yeung made an unwanted sexual advance to the complainant. At 1:43am A.S. messaged Mr. Hui who had left and described Mr. Yeung as “creepy”. A.S. asked Mr. Martinez to help her with Mr. Yeung which he did by escorting him out of the apartment. A.S. began vomiting and Mr. Martinez remained with A.S. while she was sick. Mr. Martinez then left the apartment.

[13] Mr. Martinez sent A.S. a text message at 7:29am and 7:58am. When he did not receive a response, he went to her apartment and let himself in. Mr. Martinez went into A.S.’s bedroom and began having sex with her.

[14] Shortly after messaging Mr. Hui, A.S. “blacked out” and her next memory was not until 8:30am and 9:00am, when she woke up to Mr. Martinez penetrating her vaginally. A.S. was very confused and did not understand what was going on. Mr. Martinez continued having sex with her for approximately five to ten minutes. A.S. fell asleep again, waking up around 10:00am to Mr. Martinez touching her vagina and then proceeding to penetrate her vaginally a second time. This went on for five minutes when he pushed A.S. off and ejaculated on himself. On neither occasion did Mr. Martinez wear a condom.

[15] A.S. testified that she was in no position to consent to any sexual activity. Later that day, A.S. had a phone conversation with Mr. Hui and disclosed the sexual assaults. A.S. disclosed to her husband the next day and steps were taken to report the matter to the police.

ii) Victim Impact Statement

[16] A.S. provided a victim impact statement in which she detailed the sexual assaults leaving her with a perception of the world that has been forever altered.

[17] At the time of July 2018, A.S. was on a six-month rotation, enjoying her time and work, and planning to stay until the end of August 2018. The sexual assaults turned her life upside down. A.S. had to leave her position at the plant and was only given two weeks paid leave until she was required to go back to work or go on unpaid medical leave. When she returned to work there were questions and rumors amongst the team about what had happened, causing A.S. to fear for her reputation and longevity at the company for months afterwards.

[18] A.S. was emotionally ‘all over the place’ and struggled immensely with her ability to focus at a time when she was trying to learn a new position and make a good impression. Several times she had to go to an unoccupied room or her car, because she would start crying thinking about and reliving the incident.

[19] A.S. detailed the rollercoaster that has been the trial process of this case. Numerous court dates were pushed back, some at the last minute. The preliminary hearing was rescheduled and once finished, three years had passed since the night of July 12, 2018. A.S. had to take numerous days off work around the preliminary hearing, and two weeks for the trial itself. A.S. had to make three separate trips to Toronto to complete her testimony, leaving her 6-month-old breast fed baby and 3-year-old at home.

[20] After the offences, A.S. had to visit a hospital in Michigan to receive preventative treatment for STDs and then a Toronto hospital for forensic evidence collection. A.S. was out of pocket approximately $1500 for these expenses. A.S. lost out on approximately $3000 worth of potential income and benefits because of having to leave her rotation early.

[21] There is not a day that goes by that A.S. does not think about what happened, and in many ways, it has had a permanent impact on her life.

iii) Circumstances of Enrique Martinez-Reynosa

[22] Mr. Martinez is 48 years old, was born in Mexico City and has been a permanent resident of the United States since 2011. Mr. Martinez received his engineering degree in 1998 and a master’s degree in business administration in 2003.

[23] In July of 2018 he was a program manager for the Body Interior Technical Team at the Ford Assembly Plant in Oakville. He had worked for Ford since 2009 in Mexico, the United States and Canada. At the time he was working at the Ford plant in Canada, he would regularly travel back and forth to Michigan to spend time with his family.

[24] He has two daughters and shares custody of them with his former partner, Amy Smith-Martinez. Both his former and current partner wrote letters of support that spoke of his love for and commitment to his two daughters. Both letters made clear that Mr. Martinez is close with his family and has always provided for them financially.

[25] Letters were also filed from Mr. Martinez’s cousin and friend, both who describe Mr. Martinez as a person of strong character and good moral standing.

[26] I understand that Mr. Martinez lost his employment at Ford Motor company but found employment at Yanfeng Global Automotive Interiors and then Rebo Electronics, both in Michigan.

B What is the appropriate sentence having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors?

i) Sentencing Range

[27] As a starting point, the Court of Appeal in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487 at para 77 has stated that in cases of forced penetration of another person, absent a highly mitigating factor, an appropriate starting point would be in the range of three to five years. This decision explicitly recognized that it was time to “chart a new course” and bring sentencing ranges into “harmony with a new societal understanding of the gravity of certain offences or the degree of responsibility of certain offenders.”: see para 72 and R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para 35.

[28] While there is no doubt sentencing is a highly individualized process, there will be circumstances where a departure either above or below the range, may be appropriate. This range recognizes the serious harm involved in sexual assaults and for sentences to reflect that harm.

[29] These pronouncements were expressly approved of in Friesen at para 146. Although the court in Friesen was dealing with child complainants, these principles also apply more broadly to sexual offences involving adults.: see R. v. Brown, 2020 ONCA 657 at para 59. In cases of sexual violence, the primary sentencing objective must be denunciation and deterrence.: R. v. Thurairajah 2008 ONCA 91 at paras 41-42 and R. v. Wells 2000 SCC 10 at para 44.

[30] Counsel for Mr. Martinez acknowledged the A.J.K. range and argued that three years is the appropriate starting point in the circumstances of this case, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors. Counsel referred to several cases to support this position that both pre and postdate A.J.K.

[31] In A.J.K. the accused committed a serious physical assault on the complainant as part of overcoming her resistance. He took her to an industrial area, penetrated her vaginally while choking her, struck her several times in the head, and pinned her against the car with such force that she could not breathe, leaving her with a concussion and bruising. A sentence of five years was upheld.

[32] In R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173 the accused and complainant lived together and were in an intimate relationship. Over the course of one night, the respondent sexually assaulted the complainant four times while she was in bed, pretending to be asleep. Each time, the respondent penetrated the complainant's vagina with his penis and ejaculated. He did not use a condom. The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The Court of Appeal overturned the sentence and imposed a sentence of three years.

[33] S.W. rejected the proposition that there is a range of 18 months to three years for “sleeping cases”, and states that there is no principled reason for distinguishing between complainants who are awake and those who are sleeping. This recognizes that the violence and trauma is no less because a complainant may have been awake. The court makes clear that “if anything in many cases, the sexual assault of a sleeping or unconscious complainant would appropriately be viewed as an aggravating factor…”.: see para 42. In addition, at paras 18 and 50, the court made note that the accused had attended for counselling and had expressed considerable remorse for his actions. These mitigating factors are not present in this case.

[34] In R v Mahmood, 2023 ONSC 3247 the complainant, friends and the accused were partying in a hotel room. The complainant and her friend went to sleep on one of the beds in the hotel room. The complainant woke and the accused was behind her whispering into her ear, and she felt a mushy feeling inside her vagina. She kicked her friend who woke up. Mr. Mahmood left the room. The trial judge found the offence “brazen”, finding that the accused viewed a sleeping woman as an invitation to sexually assault her. It was aggravating that he purposely used the key to the room to enter after the women were asleep. It was also found to be an aggravating factor that the complainant was asleep, “this is the ultimate objectification…being woken from sleep to a sexual assault can only increase the unreality of the situation and the trauma”.: see para 25.

[35] In determining a fit sentence, the trial judge found that there was an element of trust between the accused and the complainant because she was staying in a hotel at his fiancé’s birthday party which he was involved in organizing. The women staying in their own hotel room was specifically to address their safety concerns. In finding that a sentence of three years was appropriate, the trial judge found that individual deterrence was important given the accused had substance abuse and mental health issues. The court also recognized the five-year delay in getting to trial as a mitigating factor, relying on R. v. Hartling, 2020 ONCA 243. I will return to this issue later in my reasons.

[36] In R. v. Shen, 2024 ONSC 1074 the accused took advantage of a vulnerable young woman by engaging in unprotected vaginal intercourse with her on two occasions, both premeditated and planned. On the first occasion the complainant was unconscious, and the second occasion occurred just after she woke up. The accused took photos and videos of the complainant while she was naked and shared one of them. The trial judge found the starting point to be four-and one-half years.

[37] The following cases relied on by the defence pre-date A.J.K.

[38] In the case of R. v. Bradley, 2008 ONCA 179, the accused was a police officer who had abused his position as mentor to a young woman who hoped to become a police officer. The Court in reducing the sentence from four years to three years found that while the impact on the complainant was devastating, there was no violence other than what was inherent in the offence itself. The offence had occurred many years before, and he had an otherwise positive character. The case involved forced vaginal and anal intercourse. The court found at paragraph 18, that although at the low end three years was found to be a fit sentence. I note that this decision is prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Friesen, which acknowledged the need for increased appreciation of the harm caused by these types of offences.

[39] In R. v. Booth, 2021 ONCA 80 the 19-year-old accused was six months into a probation order for a prior sexual assault conviction, when he committed another sexual assault. He and the complainant attended a house party. The complaint who was intoxicated went to sleep in a bedroom and awoke to find the accused on top of her. The trial judge found the accused had penetrated the victim, just before the light came on. The trial judge imposed a sentence of 18 months. The Court of Appeal found this to be a demonstrably unfit sentence and would have imposed a sentence of three years but for fresh evidence of his current circumstances. The court found the “moral blameworthiness” of the accused was high. He had sexually assaulted an extremely vulnerable victim who was incapacitated by alcohol and unconscious.: see para 23.

[40] Counsel also relies on R. v. Rand, 2012 ONCA 731 as an example of “what a four-year sentence looks like”. In that case the complainant had gone to an open-air concert and drank a considerable amount of alcohol. She went to the washroom and her next memory was of the accused on top of her penetrating her vaginally. He then engaged in oral sex with her and then penetrated her anally. She woke up in the bushes alone, and the next day was bleeding from her anus. A sentence of four years was upheld with the court finding that the accused had “taken advantage of a vulnerable intoxicated young woman.”: see para 19.

[41] Each case is similar to Mr. Martinez’s in some way, although there are important differences as well. No case is directly comparable. Based on my review of the cases, I am of the view that Mr. Martinez’s sentence should fall in the middle of the range established by A.J.K.

ii) Aggravating Factors

[42] There are several aggravating factors in this case. First, A.S. was asleep and awoke to Mr. Martinez sexually assaulting her. As we have finally come to understand, all sexual assaults are serious acts of violence.: A.J.K. at para 74. The additional trauma associated with being awoken from sleep to a sexual assault cannot be understated. I do not accept the defence argument that the fact that A.S. was asleep does not add to the starting point of three years. In my view, it is a serious aggravating factor that A.S. woke from sleep to find Mr. Martinez sexually assaulting her.: S.W. at para 42. As the Alberta Court of Appeal said R. v. Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363 at paras 282-283, sexually assaulting a person who is asleep is treating that person as “an object to be used—and abused—at will.”

[43] Second, I am satisfied that Mr. Martinez was aware that A.S. was extremely intoxicated the night before. On Mr. Martinez’s own evidence, he helped A.S. when she became sick and was vomiting. Mr. Martinez took advantage of A.S. knowing how intoxicated she had been, and I am satisfied he was still aware of this when he entered her bedroom a few hours later.

[44] Third, Mr. Martinez entered A.S.’s apartment without invitation, entered her bedroom and took advantage of A.S. while she was vulnerable and asleep for his own sexual gratification. A.S. should have been safe in her own home, in her own bed, but in fact was far from safe. I appreciate that Mr. Martinez was not charged with break and enter. In my view, however, Mr. Martinez entering A.S.’s apartment and bedroom without invitation is an aggravating factor.

[45] Fourth, both instances of sexual assault involved unprotected vaginal intercourse. Mr. Martinez failure to use a condom is aggravating as it adds to the gravity of the offence by exposing A.S. to pregnancy and disease.: see R. v. Shrivastava, 2019 ABQB 663 at para 45.

[46] Fifth, I am satisfied that there was an element of trust between A.S. and Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez was older than A.S. and was in a supervisory position at the company they both worked at, although not A.S.’s direct supervisor. When A.S. received flirtatious text messages from Mr. Martinez, she did not feel comfortable asking him to stop, given his position in the company. A.S. asked Mr. Martinez to help her in dealing with the unwanted sexual advances by Mr. Yeung on the night of the offence.

[47] Finally, the serious impact these offences have had on the complainant as outlined in her victim impact statement, is a significant aggravating factor. It was argued by counsel for Mr. Martinez that there was no evidence of any ‘actual’ harm to A.S., referring to Friesen at para 85. I am not persuaded by this submission. As the Supreme Court says, “Direct evidence of actual harm is often available. In particular, victim impact statements, including those presented by parents and caregivers of the child, will usually provide the "best evidence" of the harm that the victim has suffered.” In this case we have the victim impact statement of A.S., which I have already referenced, that details the ongoing and permanent harm that these offences have caused.

iii) Mitigating Factors

[48] There are some mitigating factors in this case, although not ones that take this case below the range I have just set out. First, Mr. Martinez has the support of his family, and appears very committed to his relationship with his daughters.

[49] For all intents and purposes Mr. Martinez does not have a criminal record. He has one conviction from the United States in 2012 for impaired driving.

[50] Mr. Martinez has a history of gainful employment and managed to continue working for most of the time while on bail for these charges.

[51] Mr. Martinez complied with the terms of his bail over a lengthy period without any allegations of breach.

iv) Appropriate Sentence

[52] The Crown has argued that a sentence of 4.5 years is appropriate and takes into account credit for Mr. Martinez’s pre-sentence custody, his restrictive bail conditions and the principle of totality. The Crown argues this sentence is appropriate given the serious harm to the bodily integrity of A.S., the breach of trust and the lasting impact the offence has had on A.S.

[53] This would in effect result in a sentence at the very high end or outside the range for this type of offence: see A.J.K. While Mr. Martinez’s moral blameworthiness is high, I do not find the factual circumstances of this case warrant a sentence outside the range. In my view the appropriate sentence in this case, before considering pre-trial credit, is one of four years.

[54] Friesen and R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 hold that the predominant aims of sentencing for sexual assaults should be deterrence and denunciation, and that the resulting sentence should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Ultimately the sentence imposed must reflect the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of the case.

[55] There is no question that this offence was a grave violation of A.S.’s bodily integrity, in a situation where she should have been safe. Mr. Martinez’s moral blameworthiness is high. He took advantage of a vulnerable, intoxicated woman and twice engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with her, for his own sexual gratification. The offences have had a serious, on-going impact on A.S., and this must be reflected in the sentence imposed.

[56] I balance that against Mr. Martinez’s otherwise good character, his relationship with his daughters and family, and his history of gainful employment.

C How much credit should Mr. Martinez be given for his pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions?

i) Delay

[57] Counsel for Mr. Martinez argued that a further credit should be given to Mr. Martinez to account for the overall delay in having this matter tried. I was not provided any evidence on this point other than I understand parts of the delay were attributable to the defence, and aspects of the delay were attributable to the Crown. No breakdown of these time frames was provided. I am not aware that a section 11(b) Charter application was ever brought.

[58] When Mr. Martinez was ordered into custody after the conviction, the defence twice asked to adjourn the sentencing hearing. Once because they wanted more time to prepare their materials, and the second for additional time to review the Crowns cases.

[59] Counsel relied on the case of Mahmood which refers to the Court of Appeals decision in Hartling at paras 115-122. These cases are distinguishable. In Mahmood the delays were because of chronic delays in the central West Region, the pandemic and some because of a prior mistrial.

[60] In Hartling the appellant argued on appeal that there had been both pre- and post-trial delays that resulted in section 11 Charter breaches. The Court of Appeal did not find unreasonable delay pre-trial as most of it was attributable to the defence. The Court did find that 14 months from conviction to sentencing was unreasonable requiring mitigation on sentence. This delay was because of a lack of institutional resources in obtaining a Gladue report.

[61] While I appreciate that the almost six-year delay in getting this matter to trial was unusual and no doubt frustrating for both Mr. Martinez and the complainant, I am unable to find on the limited record before me that it warrants mitigation.

ii) Summers Credit

[62] Mr. Martinez has been in custody since March 3, 2024. As of the sentencing date of August 29, 2024, that is 180 days. He also spent two days in custody at the time of his arrest before he was released. There is no dispute that Mr. Martinez receive Summers credit, which on the ratio of 1.5 to 1, would be 273 days.

iii) Downes Credit

[63] Mr. Martinez was arrested on July 18, 2018. He was released the following day on a bail that required him to live with his surety in Hamilton, Ontario. He was required to deposit his passport. There was no house arrest condition, but the conditions made it difficult for Mr. Martinez to have in person contact with his family who were in Michigan. In addition, he was unable to work in Canada, being a non-resident. This caused Mr. Martinez and his family certain emotional and economic hardship.

[64] On November 29, 2018, Mr. Martinez received a bail variation allowing him to travel to and from Michigan, Thursday to Monday every week and on Christmas Day and New Years Day. This variation enabled Mr. Martinez to spend time with his family, and if possible, to obtain employment. On February 13, 2019, Mr. Martinez received a further bail variation where he was able to return to Michigan full-time, and 5 days later he began full-time employment.

[65] There is no formula for calculating the appropriate credit. The focus instead should be on the amount of time spent on restrictive conditions, the impact of those conditions on the accused’s liberty and the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activities.: see R. v. Downes, [2006] O.J. No 555 (Ont.C.A.) and R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733 at paras 107-108.

[66] I am satisfied that the bail conditions from the time of July 18, 2018, to November 29, 2018, in particular, had some impact on Mr. Martinez’s ability to “carry on normal relationships, employment, and activity”. While he was not on a house arrest condition, the effect of the conditions given his inability to see his family and work, warrant some mitigation.

iv) Duncan Credit

[67] Mr. Martinez filed an affidavit describing his time in custody which was spent at the Toronto South Detention Centre. As is unfortunately typical for the Toronto South, many of those days he experienced either a full or partial lockdown, almost entirely because of staff shortages. This resulted in restricted access to among other things, fresh air and time outside of his cell, the phone to call his family or lawyer, chapel, clean laundry, and the showers. The reality for Mr. Martinez is that he has spent most of his time in custody, in a very small space for hours and sometimes days on end.

[68] Other than when he was in an intake unit for two weeks, Mr. Martinez was in a cell that was triple bunked. This meant a mattress on the floor, little room for movement in the cell, and reduced privacy while using the toilet. This caused Mr. Martinez a great deal of stress and anxiety. Not knowing when he would be able to contact his family also caused Mr. Martinez stress.

[69] I join a chorus of judges in condemning the conditions at the Toronto South. That these conditions have been and continue to be a result of staff shortages is inexplicable. I adopt the statements of my colleagues who have described the conditions as “unacceptable, shocking, deplorable, harsh, oppressive, degrading, disheartening, appalling, Dickensian, regressive and inexcusable.”: see R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774 at para 78; R. v. H-O, 2022 ONSC 4900 at paras 88 and 90, R. v. Persaud, 2020 ONSC 188 at para 31.

[70] Counsel for Mr. Martinez submitted that at minimum he should receive a credit the equivalent of 0.5 for every day spent in custody, in addition to the Summers credit. The notion of the “Duncan credit” was reconsidered in the decision of R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344. The court reiterated that the Summers credit already factors in difficult and restrictive circumstances that offenders often encounter in pre-trial custody.: see para 50. The court went on to make clear that the “Duncan credit” should be considered as a factor in mitigation rather than the subject of a mathematical calculation.: see paras 52-53. The risk, otherwise, is that it might “skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence” and will result in an improper deduction from the appropriate sentence.

[71] I decline to assign this factor a specific mathematical deduction and will instead consider it as one of the mitigating features to be factored into the determination of a proper sentence for these offences.

D Disposition

[72] I have determined that an appropriate global sentence for Mr. Martinez is 4 years. This reflects 4 years concurrent on each count. I will further reduce the sentence to 3 years to reflect the Summers credit of 273 days, and the mitigating factors related to the harsh conditions at the Toronto South and his bail conditions.

[73] I am not prepared to impose a free-standing restitution order in the amount of $4008 as requested by the Crown. Restitution orders are to be made with restraint and caution.: R. v. Robertson, 2020 ONCA 367 at paras 7-8. In my view, the sentence I am imposing adequately addresses the principles of sentencing. I have also considered that, given the sentence I am imposing, Mr. Martinez will not be employed for some time, and it is not clear how quickly he will obtain employment once he is released.

[74] In addition, there will be the following orders:

a. Section 487.051(1) DNA Order;

b. Pursuant to section 490.012(3) and section 490.013(2) a Sex Offender Information Registry Act order for twenty years;

c. An order under Section 109(1)(2) prohibiting possession of firearms and other weapons as described in that act for ten years, and

d. A section 743.21(1) order prohibiting communication directly or indirectly with the complainant for the duration of his custodial sentence.

J.K. Penman J.

Released: August 29, 2024