Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Turmaine, 2011 ONCA 786

DATE: 20111214

DOCKET: C52279

BEFORE: Feldman and Armstrong JJ.A. and Himel J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

and

Michael Turmaine

Appellant

COUNSEL:

Saara Wilson, for the appellant

Joanne Stuart, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: December 9, 2011

On appeal from the dangerous offender designation entered by Justice James B. MacDougall of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 3, 2009.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In our view, the dangerous offender designation in this case was reasonable. The trial judge wrote extremely thorough reasons on sentence, reviewing all of the evidence in detail and considering the legal test. The appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence of a pattern from the predicate offence and prior offences. He submits that the predicate offence was intended only as a property offence and that the aggression against the victim only occurred because she was unexpectedly home. We do not accept this submission. The predicate offence involved violence against a woman in her home as did four of his previous offences.

[2] We also agree with the trial judge that the proposed plan for the appellant as a long term offender in the community following 2.5 years of intensive courses while in custody was unrealistic, given the appellant’s many failures to follow through with therapy and the amount of constant supervision that would be required in the community.

[3] The appeal is therefore dismissed.