Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20240306 DOCKET: COA-23-CR-1019

MacPherson, Miller and Monahan JJ.A.

BETWEEN

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

Devonie Williams-Senior Appellant

Counsel: Devonie Williams-Senior, appearing in-person Peter Copeland, duty counsel Nicholas Hay, for the Crown

Heard and released orally: March 5, 2024

On appeal from the conviction entered on March 31, 2023 and the sentence imposed on July 20, 2023 by Justice Peter C. West of the Ontario Court of Justice.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant was found guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence.

[2] There was no dispute that there was a robbery of a private home. The issue was whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence. The Crown’s case on identity was circumstantial. It depended primarily on the fact that the appellant’s fingerprints were found on a jewelry box that was handled by the person who committed the robbery.

[3] The appellant did not dispute that his fingerprints were on the jewelry box but argued that it was possible that he might have handled the box in a store prior to its purchase by the victims. He argues that the trial judge unreasonably rejected this possibility.

[4] We do not agree. As the trial judge correctly observed, although the Crown in a circumstantial case is required to persuade the trier of fact that guilt is the only reasonable inference from the evidence or lack of evidence, there is no requirement to disprove possibilities that are speculative. In this case the trial judge concluded that the scenario suggested by the appellant was entirely speculative and hypothetical. He concluded, correctly in our view, that the only reasonable explanation for the fact that the appellant’s fingerprints were on the jewelry box was that he had committed the robbery. We agree and would dismiss the conviction appeal.

[5] The appellant appeals his sentence of two years less a day incarceration, arguing that the trial judge failed to take into account his need for rehabilitation. The trial judge did make passing reference to his medical condition but found that any lesser sentence would be manifestly inappropriate, given the serious nature of the offence in this case, its impact on the victims, and his serious criminal record. The trial judge took into account all the relevant sentencing principles in coming to this determination, and we see no basis for interfering with his exercise of discretion.

[6] The sentence appeal is dismissed.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”

“P.J. Monahan J.A.”