Court File and Parties
Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 20211213 Docket: C69654
MacPherson, Coroza and Sossin JJ.A.
Between
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Michael Karas Appellant
Counsel: Michael Karas, acting in person Chris Rudnicki, appearing as duty counsel Philippe Cowle, for the respondent
Heard: December 8, 2021
On appeal from the sentence imposed on December 29, 2020 by Justice Todd Ducharme of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, with reasons reported at 2020 ONSC 8183.
Reasons for Decision
[1] The appellant was charged on a 24-count indictment for offences relating to four bank robberies committed using an imitation firearm. The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery, two counts of using an imitation firearm while committing the offence of robbery, and one count of forcible confinement. On consent, the facts were read in for all four robberies and the appellant accepted that the facts read in were true.
[2] The offences were extremely serious and carefully planned. The appellant used an imitation firearm and a mask. The offences had a significant impact on the victims. The sentencing judge noted that the appellant was a career criminal because he had amassed a lengthy criminal record that included convictions for nine prior bank robberies and a conviction for murder in Thailand.
[3] After reviewing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of 21 years less enhanced credit for pre-trial custody. The net global sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was 15 years, 6 months and 10 days.
[4] The appellant argues that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is disproportionate because he only pleaded guilty to two bank robberies; the sentence is a significant increase from his last sentence on his criminal record; and the trial judge erred because he did not consider relevant mitigating factors. He submits that his sentence should be reduced.
[5] Duty counsel, on behalf of the appellant, argues that the trial judge erred in principle by finding that the appellant’s guilty plea was not a significant demonstration of remorse given the strength of the Crown’s case. Duty counsel submits that by pleading guilty the appellant spared the victims from testifying and saved the system a lengthy trial.
[6] We see no error in the sentencing judge’s reasons for sentence. The sentencing judge considered each of the appellant’s arguments at the sentencing hearing.
[7] We are also not persuaded by duty counsel’s submission. It was the sentencing judge’s call as to what weight he would give the guilty plea. In our view, the sentencing judge recognized that the appellant’s guilty plea avoided the need for a trial which would have been difficult for some of the victims, but he did not view the plea as a significant expression of remorse. We see no error in his conclusion. We note that the appellant’s pattern of committing armed bank robberies over several years undercuts any assertion of remorse. Protection of the public was the overriding sentencing goal in this case, and the global sentence imposed reflects that principle.
[8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
"J.C. MacPherson J.A."
"S. Coroza J.A."