Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2021-09-20 Docket: C66257

Judges: Doherty, Gillese and Huscroft JJ.A.

Between: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

And: Jeffrey Shuman Appellant

Counsel: Stephen Proudlove, for the appellant Gregory Furmaniuk, for the respondent

Heard: September 17, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from the sentence imposed on July 25, 2017, by Justice Cynthia Johnston of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to seven counts of robbery with a firearm arising from bank robberies he committed in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. At the sentencing hearing, the parties agreed that the sentences should run concurrently because otherwise the appellant would have been sentenced to 28 years, given the four-year mandatory minimum. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

[2] The appellant raises two issues on his sentence appeal and argues that a global sentence of 12-13 years is appropriate. He submits that:

the 15-year sentence is outside the sentencing range for these offences and demonstrably unfit; and
the reasons for sentence are insufficient because the sentencing judge did not (a) explain why 15 years was the appropriate sentence, (b) explain how she apportioned the 15 years, or (c) mention the totality principle.

[3] We accept neither submission. We see no error on the part of the sentencing judge.

[4] In respect of the submission that the sentence is demonstrably unfit, we begin by noting that it is not far off that sought by the appellant on appeal. In any event, the sentence is fit. Deterrence and denunciation were paramount for these serious offences that traumatized innocent, vulnerable and unsuspecting bank employees, and the community more broadly.

[5] Nor do we accept the complaints levied against the adequacy of the reasons for sentence. Those reasons leave no room for doubt as to how and why the sentencing judge arrived at the 15-year sentence. She carefully set out the facts, applicable legal principles, nature of the offences, and the appellant’s circumstances. She then noted the following aggravating factors: the robberies were sophisticated, planned and premeditated; the appellant used intimidation and threats of violence against vulnerable bank employees; he brandished a handgun on each occasion; in some of the robberies, he confined bank employees to locked rooms or bank vaults after he fled; and, he had a history of committing bank robberies, having been convicted in the United States of 14 bank robberies in Florida and Tennessee, for which he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge also expressed “significant doubt” that the appellant was remorseful or appreciated the gravity of his actions and their significant impact on the victims and community. The sentencing judge also identified the mitigating factors: the appellant pleaded guilty on the eve of trial; he used a pellet gun – not a handgun – in the commission of the offences; he did not use gratuitous violence in committing the robberies; on occasion, he waited until civilians left the bank before robbing it; and, he agreed that 100,000 Euros seized from his apartment were robbery proceeds and should be used toward restitution.

[6] Further, the sentencing judge was clearly alive to the totality principle. While the Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 17 ½ years and the defence sought a sentence of 10 years, both parties asked for concurrent sentences to avoid a 28-year sentence given the four-year mandatory minimum. There was no need for the sentencing judge to break down the global sentence because, as the defence conceded at the time of sentencing, all counts were identical and the appropriate outcome was concurrent sentences.