Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2014-11-24

Court File No.: Halton 11-3419

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Santana Ann-Kay Rowe

Before: Justice L.M. Baldwin

Heard on: November 27, 2013 and March 31, 2014

Reasons for Judgment released on: November 24, 2014

Counsel:

• M. McGuigan and A. Khoorshed, for the Crown
• N. Bartels, for the defendant Santana Ann-Kay Rowe

BALDWIN J.:

Introduction

[1] Ms. Rowe pled not guilty to 5 counts of fraud under $5,000.00 from the Telus store in Oakville. Two counts have an offence date of August 8th, 2011; two counts have an offence date of August 19, 2011; one count has an offence date of August 25th, 2011.

[2] The Crown proceeded summarily.

Background

[3] Ms. Rowe worked as a Sales Representative in the Telus store located in the Oakville Place Mall at the relevant times. She had been employed there since November of 2010.

[4] Ms. Rowe was 19 years of age at the relevant time (born October 19, 1990). She was 23 years of age when she testified at trial.

[5] Date, jurisdiction, identity, and the fact that Ms. Rowe processed the 5 transactions alleged are not in issue. The fact that the purchases were made with fraudulent credit cards is not in issue.

[6] At the outset of trial, the inculpatory statement given by Ms. Rowe to the Telus loss prevention officer on October 26, 2011 was admitted as being voluntary.

[7] The Defence challenges the accuracy of the statement since the interview process was not audio or video-taped.

[8] In her trial evidence, Ms. Rowe testified that she was coerced into giving a statement to the loss prevention officer and he dictated to her what she wrote in her statement. She denied that her statement was voluntary or accurate.

[9] The issue is whether the Crown has proven that Ms. Rowe had prior knowledge that products she sold on the offence dates were purchased with fraudulent credit cards.

Exhibits Filed on Consent

• #1 – Affidavit of Kim Damiano (re: fraudulent credit card in the name of Matthew Creary-Watson)
• #2 – Written Statement of Santana Rowe
• #3 – 3 receipts for purchases of hand held devices at the Telus store – two transactions on August 8, 2011; one on August 25th, 2011 with Ms. Santana's written and signed statement on each that "I completed this fraud transaction"
• #4(a) – Still photograph from Telus store DVR dated August 8th, 2011 time-stamped 19:29:32 which corresponds with the fraud credit card transaction, same date, time and terminal as Exhibited receipt
• #4(b) – Still photograph from Telus store DVR dated August 8, 2011 time-stamped 19:36:40 which corresponds with the fraud credit card transaction, same date, time and terminal as Exhibited receipt
• #5 – Text messages print-out from Ms. Rowe's work phone showing communication made August 7, 8 and 19 regarding purchases of the hand held devices
• #6 – Original receipts in property envelope
• #7(a) – Photocopy of void Transaction August 19, 2011
• #7(b) – Photocopy of void Transactions August 19, 2011

Summary of the Evidence of Sean Ayre

[10] Mr. Ayre has been a loss prevention officer employed by Telus for 9 years. He is responsible for investigations, interviews and for external investigations. He conducted the investigation into these frauds.

[11] The matter came to his attention as a 'dashboard exception report' for a number of reasons:

1. The transactions showed up as high amounts where outright purchases of handsets were made; the Telus business typically does not sell handsets outright at corporate retail stores; phones are sold on contract for much less;

2. The transactions were card-swiped transactions, not a card with chip and PIN;

3. The purchases were not approved by a store manager or area manager which was a policy for the purchase of multi handsets;

4. The terminal used for all but one of the transactions were done on terminal 4 which is the terminal at the back of the store in the service centre; it's hidden away from the sales floor and other employees can't see it well.

[12] Mr. Ayre testified that when he reviewed the texts on Ms. Rowe's phone, he determined that she was aware that people were coming into the store to buy devices with fraudulent cards and that she was receiving the benefit of a phone from it. The communications were right before the transactions and came from the same number. (p. 21)

[13] He has mandatory interview interrogation training, as well as on-the-job interviewing experience.

[14] He interviewed Ms. Rowe on October 26, 2011. The store manager, Mr. Gerald Willick, was present for the interview and Willick was the note taker.

[15] Ms. Rowe was interviewed in the Oakville Place (OP) boardroom. Telus rents this room on an as-needed basis.

[16] Gerald Willick brought Ms. Rowe into the interview.

[17] There are two stages to the interview – a verbal and a written statement.

[18] He introduced himself to Ms. Rowe as being from the Loss Prevention department. He was investigating some things at the store and wanted to speak with her about them. Shortly after beginning, he broached the subject of the fraudulent transactions.

[19] "And that's when she began to give me information on how it was set-up, who approached her, gentleman's name, how they would come in, how many times she can recall it happening, having fraud transactions happening." (p. 29)

[20] She claimed that Matthew went to high school with her. She described him as mixed black racial origin.

[21] "Matthew told her it was fraud." (pp. 29, 30)

[22] She said words to the effect of he was badgering her to do some of these fraud transactions.

[23] Ms. Rowe told him that on three occasions Matthew or a friend came in and on two occasions, from what she recalled, the transactions actually went through. Ms. Rowe confirmed the picture of the friend from the still photographs that he showed her. She confirmed the photograph of Matthew from the still photographs that he showed her.

[24] "She stated that Matthew had told her over the phone about the credit cards and how they're actually fraud." (p. 31)

[25] "She stated that it was Matthew that entered the store on August 19th, 2011 (those transactions did not go through) and August 25th, 2011. The August 8th transactions were with Matthew's friend.

[26] Mr. Ayre testified that Ms. Rowe appeared "pretty calm" throughout the interview. It appeared to him that she did not think it was quite a big deal when she admitted to knowing that this stuff was wrong. (p. 34, 40)

[27] Ms. Rowe told him that she did not get anything out of it and did not want anything originally out of it. "But the messages show that that may not have been the case but her statement to me was." (p. 35)

[28] Ms. Rowe started making her written statement at 6:05 p.m. She completed the statement at 6:31 p.m.

[29] Mr. Ayre testified that Ms. Rowe could have taken all the time that she wanted when she wrote her statement.

[30] He did not tell her what to put in her statement. He prompts people in the beginning where to put their name and date, but everything else is completely voluntary. The statement was signed by Ms. Rowe and was witnessed by himself and Gerald Willick.

[31] Mr. Ayre testified that Ms. Rowe read out loud the paragraph underneath the first page saying that she voluntarily prepared the statement on her own before she signed it.

[32] Mr. Ayre testified that the verbal and written statement was not audio-taped or video-taped because the company (Telus) will not approve it. The loss prevention department has previously sought this approval.

It borders on negligence for the Telus Corporation to not equip its loss prevention officers with audio/video equipment when they are taking statements from employees suspected of fraudulent activity at their place of business. Their failure to do so results in days of unnecessary expensive court time being used up in cases such as this, where the issue boils down to what exactly happened in the interview between the employee and the loss prevention officer.

[33] Mr. Ayre testified that Ms. Rowe was free to leave the interview any time she wished. She was on shift at the time, and the consequences with respect to her leaving would be up to management and/or Human Resources.

[34] After the verbal interview with Ms. Rowe was over and the statement was being prepared, Mr. Ayre called the Area Manager. Gerald spoke to the Area Manager and the decision was made to suspend Ms. Rowe with pay pending the results of the investigation.

[35] Further investigation on Mr. Ayre's part included finding the two voided transactions on August 19th, 2011.

[36] Mr. Ayre testified that the total loss for the transactions that went through on August 8th and 25th was $4,231.84 for the handsets (one Blackberry and three iPhones on August 8th; two iPhones on August 25th per Exhibit #3).

[37] In cross examination, Mr. Ayre denied that he suggested what Ms. Rowe should put in her written statement. She chose her own words. He did not coerce her.

[38] Mr. Ayre stated that he had a pretty good idea before the interview started that Ms. Rowe knew in advance about the frauds "…but she is the one who actually stated that she was aware ahead of time." (p. 47)

[39] On August 19th there were two attempted transactions for four iPhones; one for $1466.74 and one for $1579.74.

Written Statement of Santana Rowe – Exhibit #2

(I have included the contents of this statement in this Judgment as it is the heart of the case and is difficult to read in the handwritten format; what appears in bold was pre-printed on the form)

TELUS corporate stores

Team Member Interview Statement

Date: Oct 26th/2011

Location: OP board Room

Time Started: 6:05 pm

Time Ended: 6:31 pm

I, Santana Rowe make this statement in the presence of Gerald Willick and Sean Ayre.

I was confronted by a gentlemen that I went to high school with in Regards to Replacing a phone that was lost. When I agreed to help Replace the phone I was also told about a credit card that would be involved to make the purchase, one phone turned into 4 and I then grew frustrated with my decision to help this individual. On two occasions I was faced with a large purchase to be sold out-right, one on Aug 25th and also Aug 8th. The first attempt failed and needed to be voided once I realized what was happening I grew irritated and did not want to do anything anymore. The second transaction went through and it was that very moment I swallowed a ball of guilt, telling myself it was over and I never wanted any involvement with anyone purchasing a phone out-Right. If I could go back to the 25th and 8th I would have, and I would have just said No and put my foot down. Once everything was done, I took my personal time to reflect and promise myself I would never put myself in such a situation again. I never spoke to anyone about how I felt and about what took place. Also I cut off all form of communication that I had with Matthew since that incident took place. While discussing the situation with Shawn (Sean) it took a while for me to catch on to what he was getting at, but once he gave it away that he knew about the fraud at OP and that I was involved I then knew what it was all about and I then felt a black cloud over my head, something I wanted to disappear had appeared and I feel terrible about everything. I wish I did not allow peer pressure to get me here and almost cost me my job that I love and value so much. From this day forth I promise myself to discuss any type of confusion of events that make me feel uncomfortable in the workplace.

Matthew had made a clear statement that the credit card used would be fraud to make the purchase(s) on both occasions.

I have voluntarily made this entire statement consisting of 2 pages on my own free will without any promises, threats or coercions.

[40] Both pages one and two of the statement were signed by Santana Rowe and the witnesses.

Summary of the Evidence of Santana Rowe

[41] Ms. Rowe lives in Brampton with her mother, two grandparents and two brothers.

[42] She went to high school and a college in Brampton.

[43] She currently works at Rogers. She has no criminal record.

[44] She met Mr. Matthew Cleary-Watson at the high school. They were student friends – never dated. They did not stay in touch after high school. (p. 52)

[45] She physically saw him again when he came into the Telus retail store in August of 2011.

[46] The first time he came in "he did greet me and asked that he wanted to replace his device that was lost…I said no problem and I attempt to process the transaction and it failed, it did not go through…I let him know before leaving the store that if he cannot afford to purchase his device to make sure his finances were in good standing before he came back because that was wasting my time and the store's very busy…so I did advise him if he didn't have enough money to come back when he did and he did come back." (p. 54)

[47] He came back again and "it went through seamlessly". (p. 54) He left with two iPhones.

[48] He came back into the store again, but the transactions failed. That was the last time she saw him. They had a verbal conversation over the phone following that.

[49] The other gentleman involved she only saw once at the Telus store. He came into the store, did not ask too many questions about products, he just wanted to purchase devices. He asked her what they had in stock and she made sure they had it available and she completed the transaction. "…it was seamless, there were no issues…" (p. 55) He left with two iPhone devices. She did not see him again.

[50] Mr. Watson left the store with cellphones on 2 occasions.

[51] Ms. Rowe testified that she did not know that Mr. Watson and his friend were using fraudulent credit cards at the time. She would never be involved in any illegal activity. She did not get any benefit from this. "The only thing that has created from all this is a lot of grief for myself personally." (p. 57)

[52] She contacted Peel Regional Police because Mr. Watson would not stop messaging her on Facebook. (p. 57 – after she was suspended by Telus)

Q. At what point did you become aware that he's a fraudster?

A. I remember the date was August 28th, the very same day I experienced a grief. There was a death and that same day he called me and we got into a verbal argument. He told me the reason for wanting devices and what he's associated with being fraudulent cards that he was working with and what he purchases with those cards. So we got into a verbal argument, like I said, I told him not to contact me ever again and to stay away from me." (p. 58)

Re: the Written Statement – Exhibit #2

[53] Ms. Rowe repeatedly testified that the written statement did not reflect what happened.

[54] Mr. Ayre made her write out a statement. He dictated the contents to her. He directed her on what to say.

[55] Mr. Ayre advised her to make the statement that follows the "star" in the statement.

[56] She did feel remorse when she had that verbal argument with Mr. Watson, but not prior to that argument.

[57] "…if I had known in advance that helping someone would cause me my job, social life, and a lot of mental, I guess you can say grief, I would never assisted a hand to anyone involved in anything…I would never reached a hand forward to help anyone whatsoever and I would have said no." (p. 60)

[58] Ms. Rowe testified that she was never told that she needed her manager's approval to sell two or more cellphones sold as handsets. Ms. Rowe testified that she has sold devices to customers in the past.

[59] In cross examination, Ms. Rowe repeated that Mr. Ayre dictated the written statement to her. He told her to write down the remorse that she had. She felt pressured by Mr. Ayre. He was in control and had authority, so she did what he told her to do. (p. 64)

[60] She did not tell Mr. Ayre that she felt any pressure.

[61] She told Mr. Ayre about the argument that she had on the 28th with Mr. Watson when she experienced some death in her family. She does not remember if she put this in her written statement. Later in her testimony she agreed that she did not.

[62] She did not find out that the man who made the phone purchases on August 8th was Matthew's friend until she had the argument with Matthew on August 28th. (p. 67)

[63] She had Matthew's number saved on her phone. "Just like every other student I had in school, yes. Like we all exchange Facebook and other information." (p. 69)

[64] Ms. Rowe was cross examined on the text exchanges to and from her work phone #647-456-7524 with #416-984-4000. The exchanges occurred on August 7, 8, and 19th, 2011.

[65] Exhibit #5 lists these exchanges. This Exhibit is hard to read and must be magnified. I will reproduce the exchanges that were referred to in this case. The texts must be read starting from the bottom and work their way up to understand when they were sent and received. I have bolded the text messages. I have put in brackets who the text is from and who the text is to. I have underlined Ms. Rowe's work phone number for ease of reference.

Date	Time	From	To	Message
07-Aug-2011	13:19:34	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	Ayo my boi said he gonna buy 3 phones 1 for me; 1 for u: un 1 for him
07-Aug-2011	13:25:46	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	What time u coming?
07-Aug-2011	13:26:46	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Oh wow.
07-Aug-2011	13:44:53	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	Round 3
07-Aug-2011	13:46:53	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Okay
08-Aug-2011	12:52:37	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	Hey s. When next u workin
08-Aug-2011	12:53:02	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Today. 430-930.
08-Aug-2011	17:49:49	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	Grey shirt; gucci glasses
08-Aug-2011	17:54:32	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	"flossing" lol okay
08-Aug-2011	17:55:29	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Do u want a Bluetooth
08-Aug-2011	19:10:44	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	How much girls are workin
08-Aug-2011	19:11:07	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Just the two of us.
08-Aug-2011	20:09:49	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Your friend is sweeeeeeeeeet :o
08-Aug-2011	20:12:26	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	Lol everythin criss doe
08-Aug-2011	20:21:26	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Yeah
08-Aug-2011	21:14:29	647-456-7524	416-984-4000	Oh my ur friend added me to bbm
19-Aug-2011	19:38:30	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	Ayo im here come out try again
19-Aug-2011	20:13:23	416-984-4000	647-456-7524	Ayo im waitin 2 try again

[66] Ms. Rowe testified that she did not recall getting the text message from Matthew on August 7th, 2011 saying that his boy was going to come in and buy 3 phones which included one for her.

[67] Ms. Rowe recalled Matthew texting her and asking when she was working and he asked about a Bluetooth. (This is wrong – she asked him about a Bluetooth as seen in the texts above)

[68] Ms. Rowe testified that it was not abnormal for family or friends to text her before they come into her retail store. She encourages that and likes to build rapport with people. (p. 70)

[69] When asked if it was unusual for a customer to offer her a free phone as part of their transaction, Ms. Rowe testified that it was not. "People offer people things and then at the end whether they look for relations or anything, it happens all the time." (p. 71)

[70] Ms. Rowe stated that it did not raise any red flags for her that a person she had not seen since high school graduation was randomly texting her and offering her a free phone.

[71] She has a lot of experience in retail having worked for Wal-Mart, Wonderland, Old Navy and Telus.

[72] No one has ever told her not to accept gifts from customers.

[73] "No one has ever told me that. I've accepted gifts from strangers that I've never met in my life and I've never been penalized for doing something like that." (p. 74)

[74] Ms. Rowe identified Matthew as the man she is serving in Exhibit #4-a, dated August 19, 2011 at 7:29 p.m.

[75] She identified Matthew's friend as the man in photo Exhibit 4-b, dated August 8, 2011 at 7:36 p.m.

[76] Ms. Rowe could not remember texting Matthew after his friend left the store saying that his friend was so sweet.

[77] Ms. Rowe was asked why the greeter at the front of the store directed Matthew's friend to her. She answered that she was the only other employee in there. (p. 80)

[78] She does not recall two separate transactions. She does not remember the Blackberry purchase.

[79] She agreed that her memory of the events was not clear.

[80] She does not recall and could not explain the text messages relating to these transactions on August 8th, 2011.

The Alleged August 28th Phone Call with Matthew

[81] Matthew called her and started asking her questions. She did not like it. She got upset and that is when Matthew told her about the fraudulent cards. She told him she had already helped him and to leave her alone. (p. 85)

[82] Ms. Rowe could not explain why a routine customer service transaction resulted in her "helping" Matthew.

[83] Ms. Rowe has no idea why Matthew called her on August 28th and confessed these crimes to her. (p. 106)

[84] They also argued about him putting her in a situation where her job and career was in jeopardy. (p. 88)

[85] Ms. Rowe testified that she made a mistake in not telling her employer that Matthew and his friend had committed these frauds.

Q. I'm going to suggest to you the reason why you didn't do that is because this never happened?

A. It happened. I cannot express to you, if you have never experienced unexpected death I cannot experience like I can't tell you how it feels…so I do apologize my fault and I accept my fault for not saying anything to anyone in regards to the argument I had with Matthew. Not a soul knows about that other than the circumstances, my lawyer and now that I'm speaking about everything so that is my biggest failure not saying anything to anyone and I take ownership of that." (pp. 88, 89)

[86] Ms. Rowe was asked about her earlier testimony that she told this to Mr. Ayre. She stated that Mr. Ayre knew there was a death. (p. 89)

[87] Ms. Rowe was taken in detail through her written statement to Mr. Ayre. She stated that some of the things in the statement are a lie because they did not come from her own brain. (p. 93)

[88] She was "clueless" during the interview and that is why she appeared to be calm. She had no idea what was going on. (p. 98)

[89] When asked to explain why she would write and speak of her profound remorse when she had not done anything wrong, Ms. Rowe stated "I cannot say I never played a role because my I.D. was attached to everything." (p. 99)

[90] Ms. Rowe testified that all of this could have been avoided now that she looks back. "…if I had been more diligent, if I had paid more attention, if I wasn't as careless as I was, I could have avoided all of this." (p. 117)

[91] "…I do have that feeling of guilt because I am the one who, you know, placed these transactions. You know I am the one that took these devices from our stock room so it is a role that I played heavily in the situation. With that being said, if I had taken more precautions, if I had seen these red flags and if I paid attention as opposed to assuming that everything was all right or even just being naïve, then I would have avoided that feeling of guilt." (p. 118)

[92] In the future she will go to her manager or get floor support to assist her with making such large purchases.

Position of the Defence

[93] Defence counsel submits that Ms. Rowe admits to sloppiness in processing these transactions because she knew Mr. Watson from high school and she trusted him. She should have been more suspicious of Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson took advantage of her trust and she got nothing out of these transactions.

[94] After Mr. Watson told her about the frauds on August 28th she should have told her work supervisor. She was negligent in not doing so.

[95] It is submitted that the statement to the loss prevention officer is problematic because she was told what to say. Because it was not video-taped or audio-taped it does not 'pass the smell test'.

[96] It is submitted that it does not make sense that a fraudster would announce in advance that he was going to use fraudulent credit cards.

[97] The Defence submits that this is a case of negligence – not fraud.

Position of the Crown

[98] The Crown submits that Ms. Rowe voluntarily provided a verbal and written confession in this case.

[99] The details of how she knew Matthew and his friend must have come from her. This could not be dictated to her as Mr. Ayre did not have this information.

[100] The Crown submits that the text messages between her and Watson points to them working together.

[101] It is submitted that Ms. Rowe's reactions to Watson were not consistent with customer service.

[102] The Crown submits that it defies common sense that no alarm bells were ringing for her when 2 major transactions using credit cards had failed.

[103] The Crown submits that Ms. Rowe was in on the purchase of all these phones knowing that the credit cards were fraudulent. How else can it be explained that Mr. Watson kept coming back to her to purchase all of these phones? The Crown asks - how many phones does a guy need?

Analysis

[104] I have applied the 3-pronged test set out in WD in assessing the accuracy and reliability of the evidence.

[105] Although I am very critical of the Telus Corporation for not providing audio/video equipment to its loss prevention officers when they are interviewing employees for suspected fraud, I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the verbal and written statements made by Ms. Rowe to Mr. Ayre were voluntary and that the written statement reflects Ms. Rowe's words.

[106] I reject Ms. Rowe's testimony that Mr. Ayre dictated the written statement to her. The statement contains information that only Ms. Rowe knew before that interview began, such as Matthew's name and that she knew him from high school.

[107] Highlights in that statement include that she was 'confronted by Matthew'; she agreed to 'help' him replace a lost phone; she was 'told' about a credit card that would be involved to make the purchase; she grew 'frustrated' with her decision to help him out; 'irritated' when transactions were voided; swallowing a ball of guilt when a transaction did go through; she should have said no and put her foot down; 'I wish I did not allow peer pressure to get me here'.

[108] These statements are at complete odds with her trial testimony that she offered nothing more than customer service to Matthew and his friend as they purchased these phones.

[109] Her trial testimony is nonsensical. I reject as fabrication that on August 28th she had this dramatic phone call with Matthew wherein he confessed all to her for the first time. It is reasonable to infer on all of the evidence that any argument with Matthew took place after she had been suspended by Telus (October 26, 2011). The argument most likely occurred October 28th when her agreement to help him with the fraudulent purchases of all these phones had now put her job at risk.

[110] Ms. Rowe could not explain the incriminating text messages that show she was in communication with Matthew about the purchases on August 8th and the attempted purchases on August 19th. It is clear that prior discussions had taken place before she was offered a free phone for her part in the transactions. Ms. Rowe testified she did not get a phone or anything else out all this. That may be, but that does not relieve her of culpability in the matter.

[111] In addition to her voluntarily signed confession and the incriminating text messages, there are the circumstances of the purchases themselves that are telling of a pre-arranged plan and knowledge on her part. These include the number of transactions for high amounts where phones were being purchased outright which is not what the Telus Mobility store regularly deals with as testified to by Mr. Ayre. Also of concern is that she processed transactions using terminal 4, which was hidden away from others' view. It would appear that on August 8th at least, only Ms. Rowe was working with one other person acting as the 'greeter'. This would also ensure that she dealt with Matthew and his friend without being viewed by others.

[112] I disagree with the Defence submission that Ms. Rowe was only being sloppy and negligent in her dealings with Matthew in this matter. I agree with the position taken by the Crown that all the evidence points to actual advanced knowledge on Ms. Rowe's part that she was going to be helping out in the fraudulent purchase of cell phones.

[113] I have found actual knowledge to have been proven in this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[114] Alternatively, Ms. Rowe should understand that the concept of wilful blindness could also apply in this case. A Court can properly find that it applies where it can almost be said that the defendant actually knew. The defendant suspected the fact; realized its probability; but refrained from obtaining the final confirmation because she wanted to be able to deny knowledge if caught.

Decision

[115] Ms. Rowe is found guilty as a party to the two Fraud Under $5,000.00 offences committed on August 8, 2011.

[116] Ms. Rowe is found guilty as a party to the one count of Fraud Under $5,000.00 offence committed on August 25th, 2011.

[117] Ms. Rowe is found guilty as a party to two attempted Fraud Under $5,000.00 offences committed on August 19th, 2011.

Released: November 24, 2014

Signed: "Justice L.M. Baldwin"