Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2021-10-07 Docket: C69192

Before: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Doherty and Watt JJ.A.

Between: Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent and Colton Davies, Appellant

Counsel: Jessica Zita, for the appellant Kristen Pollock, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: October 5, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Amanda J. Camara of the Ontario Court of Justice on December 4, 2020.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to 14 offences committed over a 9-month period, ranging from possession of property over $5,000 (namely stolen motor vehicles), to operating those vehicles while prohibited, to failing to stop for the police, to drug trafficking and firearm offences.

[2] He entered guilty pleas knowing that, together, the provincial and federal Crowns would request a total sentence of 46 months less time served. On his behalf, duty counsel requested a sentence of 30 months.

[3] The appellant was sentenced immediately following the conclusion of submissions. He received a global sentence of 46 months less 672 days of presentence custody, leaving a remainder of 708 days to serve.

[4] The appellant argues that the sentencing judge erred in arriving upon this sentence.

[5] First, he argues that the sentencing judge failed to take into account certain mitigating factors. In oral submissions, the appellant has focused upon what is described as a failure to provide sufficient mitigation arising from the appellant’s guilty pleas. We do not agree. The sentencing judge specifically acknowledged the guilty pleas as a factor in mitigation. There is no specific mathematical formula that applies to mitigation arising from a guilty plea and there is nothing to suggest that the guilty pleas were not taken into account when arriving upon the ultimate sentence. Further, in light of the seriousness of the offences and the appellant’s lengthy criminal record, the Crown position on sentence clearly took the guilty pleas into account.

[6] Although not advanced in oral submissions, the appellant also contends that the sentence was not properly individualized. This submission seems to be related to what is said to be a decision by the trial judge not to make an order for counselling. As no submissions were made or evidence led as to what counselling would have been appropriate, this ground of appeal is without support.

[7] Third, the appellant argues that the reasons for sentence are insufficient. We do not agree. The reasons, which were delivered in the immediate wake of submissions, must be read within that wider context. They adequately explain the decision arrived upon and are amenable to review.

[8] Leave to appeal from sentence is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“Doherty J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”