Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Amante, 2016 ONCA 18

DATE: 20160111

DOCKET: C60309

Cronk, Tulloch and van Rensburg JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Anthony Amante

Appellant

Christopher D. Hicks, for the appellant

Andrew Nisker, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: January 7, 2016

On appeal from the sentence imposed on January 14, 2015 by Justice L. Dean of the Ontario Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals his global sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment, less one year and three and one-half months’ credit for pre-sentence custody, imposed after his pleas of guilty to a series of drug and property-related offences. The most serious offences to which the appellant pleaded, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, involved obtaining one kilogram of cocaine in Toronto to transport and distribute in Windsor. This occurred within one year of the appellant having served six months in jail for drug dealing. The appellant also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in marijuana.

[2] The appellant acknowledges that the sentence imposed is within the appropriate range for someone who is a high level trafficker. However, he says that the sentencing judge erred in this case by finding that the appellant “was at a high level of the drug business”.

[3] We disagree. There was evidence before the sentencing judge, in particular, the agreed facts read in at the appellant’s guilty plea proceeding, that amply supported this inference. This included the agreed facts regarding the appellant’s conduct and intention on the day in question and his activities immediately prior to his arrest.

[4] We note, further, that the admitted facts belie the appellant’s contention that he was merely a non-professional drug courier within the meaning of the applicable jurisprudence.

[5] The sentencing judge’s impugned finding, therefore, was available on the evidence. It follows that there is no error in the global sentence the appellant received, which fell within the appropriate range for this type of offender and these offences.

[6] For these reasons, the sentence appeal is dismissed.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“M. Tulloch J.A.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”