Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Carvalho, 2007 ONCA 614

Date: 20070910

Docket: C46320

Before: SIMMONS AND BLAIR JJ.A. AND McKINNON J. (AD HOC)

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

And

VICTOR LAWRENCE CARVALHO Appellant

Counsel: Richard Litkowski (duty counsel) for the appellant Lorna Bolton for the respondent

Heard: August 21, 2007

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice W. Brian Stead of the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 13, 2006 and from the sentence imposed by Justice Stead dated October 30, 2006.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was convicted of uttering threats and assault. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment in addition to 50 days credit for pre-sentence custody. He appeals against conviction and sentence.

[2] In relation to the conviction appeal, the appellant contends that his conviction for uttering threats is unreasonable. In particular the appellant points out that the appellant's father who was the object of the threats testified that the appellant's voice was normal and that he (the father) was not afraid.

[3] We reject the appellant's submission that the conviction for uttering threats was unreasonable. In contrast to the appellant's father's evidence, the appellant's mother and daughter testified that the appellant was speaking loudly. The appellant's mother said she thought the appellant was going to hurt them and that she was scared. Moreover, the appellant acknowledged in his evidence that he was upset. Various witnesses testified that the appellant had been drinking. The trial judge found that the appellant's father was minimizing his evidence. In these circumstances, in our view, the trial's judge's finding that the threats were meant to be intimidating was supported by the evidence and is not unreasonable.

[4] As for the sentence appeal, given the appellant's history and criminal record the trial judge was entitled to place particular emphasis on the need for specific deterrence. While the sentence was at the upper end of the range, in our view, it was not unfit. Accordingly, the conviction appeal is dismissed. While leave to appeal sentence is granted the sentence appeal is dismissed.