WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 212, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant's sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: May 7, 2018

Court File No.: Halton 17-3054, 17-2944

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

A.J.E.

Before: Justice D.A. Harris

Heard on: January 23, and March 27, 2018

Reasons for Sentence released on: May 7, 2018

Counsel:

Elise Quinn — counsel for the Crown

Ayodele Akenroye — counsel for the accused A.J.E.

Reasons for Sentence

[1] Introduction

A.J.E. pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault involving CG, which occurred on November 7, 2016 in Halton Hills and on September 19, 2017 in Milton.

Crown counsel elected to proceed by indictment.

Mr. A.J.E. is before me today to be sentenced.

Crown counsel suggested that I should sentence him to imprisonment for between four and five years. She also requested the following ancillary orders:

(1) An order that Mr. A.J.E. comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) for life;

(2) An order prohibiting communication with CG during the custodial portion of his sentence;

(3) a DNA order; and

(4) a weapons prohibition.

Counsel for Mr. A.J.E. suggested that I sentence him to imprisonment for between 12 and 18 months. He agreed that it was appropriate for me to make the ancillary orders.

I find that a sentence of imprisonment for the equivalent of 40 months is appropriate.

My reasons for this are set out under the following headings:

(1) The fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing,

(2) The facts underlying the offence,

(3) The impact on the victim,

(4) The background of Mr. A.J.E., and

(5) Analysis.

Fundamental Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

The fundamental purpose of sentencing as expressed in section 718 of the Criminal Code is to contribute to respect for the law, the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation; deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences; separating offenders from society, where necessary; assisting in rehabilitating offenders; providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

The relevance and relative importance of each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender.

The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The punishment should fit the crime. There is no single fit sentence for any particular offence.

Doherty J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in R. v. Hamilton that:

The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence.

He went on to state that:

The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence - especially the fault component - and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime.

He then quoted Rosenberg J.A. who had previously described the proportionality requirement in R. v. Priest:

The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.

Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing, but it is not the only principle to be considered.

The offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering her age and other personal circumstances, including her health and financial situation. Section 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code provides that this is an aggravating circumstance, and that the sentence should reflect that.

Section 718.2(c) provides that where consecutive sentences are imposed the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.

The totality principle requires a sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender. I must review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate sentence is "just and appropriate". A cumulative sentence may offend the totality principle if the aggregate sentence is substantially above the normal level of a sentence for the most serious of the individual offences involved, or if its effect is to impose on the offender "a crushing sentence" not in keeping with his record and prospects.

In doing this, I should first fix appropriate individual sentences to arrive at a total sentence and then adjust the total sentence to ensure that it does not exceed what is just and appropriate.

With respect to consecutive sentences, section 718.3(4)(b)(i) provides that:

The court that sentences an accused shall consider directing… (b) that the terms of imprisonment that it imposes at the same time for more than one offence be served consecutively including when (i) the offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events.

There is a broad discretion to impose consecutive sentences if separate legal interests are implicated in the various offences.

Section 718.2(d) which provides that, "an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".

Section 718.2(e) which provides that "...all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders."

The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of this section in Gladue v. The Queen and said that section 718.2(e) applies to all offenders, and that imprisonment should be the penal sanction of last resort. Prison is to be used only where no other sanction or combination of sanctions is appropriate to the offence and the offender.

In R. v. Priest, supra the Ontario Court of Appeal made it clear that much of this is simply a codification of the existing law, especially with respect to youthful first offenders.

The primary objectives in sentencing a first offender are individual deterrence and rehabilitation. Except for very serious offences and offences involving violence, these objectives are not only paramount but best achieved by either a suspended sentence and probation or a very short term of imprisonment followed by a term of probation.

Before imposing a custodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are available and only impose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate.

The Supreme Court of Canada further noted in Gladue that section 718 now requires a sentencing judge to consider more than the long-standing principles of denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Now a sentencing judge must also consider the restorative goals of repairing the harms suffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the harm caused on the part of the offender, and attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender. As a general matter restorative justice involves some form of restitution and reintegration into the community.

The maximum sentence for sexual assault is imprisonment for ten years where the Crown proceeded by indictment.

Crown counsel provided me with a casebook containing 12 cases. Counsel for Mr. A.J.E. provided me with a casebook containing eight. I will not be summarizing these here. I have read all of them and none of them is identical to the case before me. Further, they set out a number of different ranges that might be appropriate. In that regard, I am mindful of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned that even where sentencing ranges are identified, they are guidelines and not hard and fast rules.

Before applying these principles, I must take into account the facts underlying the offences, the impact on the victim, and the background of Mr. A.J.E.

The Offences

The victim CG was 41 years of age. She and Mr. A.J.E. met in the fall of 2015 while receiving treatment in the psychiatric wing at the Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital. They began dating in January 2016 and then were in an "on and off relationship".

Both suffer from mental health issues and drug and alcohol abuse issues. CG suffers from depression and takes prescribed medication to treat her depression.

The first incident occurred on November 7, 2016 at her residence in the Town of Halton Hills.

That night, the two became intimate while on her couch, but at one point she asked him to stop, as she did not wish to continue. They did stop. They then fell asleep.

When CG woke up, she experienced a strange feeling she could not understand. She saw his phone, and while looking through it, found two videos of Mr. A.J.E. having sex with a woman. She quickly realized that the woman was in fact her.

The first video is about 50 seconds in length and shows Mr. A.J.E. inserting his fingers in CG's vagina. Then he penetrated her vagina with his penis.

The second video recording is just under 30 seconds long and shows Mr. A.J.E. again penetrating her vagina.

CG confronted Mr. A.J.E. about the videos. She audio recorded the confrontation, during which Mr. A.J.E. admitted the above. Specifically, CG said to him "you raped me once", to which he replied, "yes". CG then said "did you not rape me once while I was asleep and video record it" to which he replied again, "yes".

Eventually CG broke up with Mr. A.J.E.

With the hope of getting back together with CG and "making things right" between them, Mr. A.J.E. turned himself into the police on April 23, 2017. He confessed to police to having sex with CG while she was asleep after a night of drinking and using drugs. He told the police that while they were having sex, CG asked him to stop, so he stopped but when she fell asleep, he had sex with her and recorded it on his phone.

After taking his confession, police contacted CG for a statement. She declined to provide one indicating she was not ready to talk about what happened. No charges were laid at that time.

The second incident occurred on September 19, 2017, again at CG's residence, now located in the Town of Milton. Mr. A.J.E. attended her residence the day before with some alcohol that he purchased for them. They both consumed the alcohol. That night, they argued and she kicked him out of the residence.

The next day, they reconciled and he returned to her residence with some food from McDonalds. She took one of her prescribed medications, clonazepam, and shortly thereafter, passed out.

At one point, she semi-awoke feeling something on her body, but passed out again, due to the alcohol and medication. She then awoke to find Mr. A.J.E. on top of her, with his penis inside her vagina. She was still very drowsy from the effects of the medication and alcohol. When he pulled his penis out of her and began to insert his fingers inside her vagina, CG got upset and confronted him saying she never gave him permission to do that. She then kicked him out of the residence.

That day, she confronted him over text message about what he did, which he admitted and apologized for. During the conversation over text message, she asked, "did you record it again" to which he replied, "No I didn't".

He conceded, "I should have stopped when you passed out". He admitted that he knew that she had taken clonazepam and continued to have sex with her while she was asleep. He continued to apologize profusely through a series of text messages.

CG did not go to the police but a few days later contacted her social worker and told her what had happened. She was taken to Nina's Place at Joseph Brant Hospital where a sexual assault examination kit was taken.

Mr. A.J.E. was arrested the following day. After being cautioned by police and after exercising his rights to counsel, he provided a statement admitting that on September 19, 2107, he was at CG's residence and that he had brought a bottle of vodka and a wine cooler. They had consumed the alcohol. The next day, he returned to her residence with McDonalds. He admitted that while CG was asleep, he inserted his penis and his fingers in her vagina. At that time, he denied recalling any such incident in November of 2016.

Impact on the Victim

I was provided with eight pages of hand-written Victim Impact Statement prepared by CG.

The following are just a few extracts from that document:

I trusted him and cared about him deeply. He took advantage of that trust and affection. Since the sexual assaults, my life has been impacted severely. The losses as a result, have been far-reaching and devastating, and they will continue to affect me for a lifetime.

This is no longer a 'home' to me. It is a place of horror and distress, and it is a constant reminder of the assault. I sleep on my living room couch most nights because my bedroom and bed evoke too much fear and panic.

I am being treated for symptoms of PTSD. I suffer from flashbacks, intrusive and repetitive thoughts, nightmares, insomnia and problems with my memory and concentration. My mood has been very low and I walk around most days in a fog. I have frequent anxiety, panic attacks, and random crying spells. I startle easily and am sensitive to noise, of other people's movements, and I am triggered by the smallest things.

I was recently prescribed anti-depressant medication to help me manage some of these symptoms.

He took advantage of me when I was most vulnerable. I don't know if anybody can ever understand what it's like to watch yourself being violated, having never had the chance to protect yourself, to call out for help, to stop it, or even attempt to. The video will forever be burned into my memory.

CG told the author of the Pre-sentence Report that Mr. A.J.E. was not the person that she thought he was. She does not want him to be able to have any contact with her whatsoever, and added that it would have a very devastating effect on her should he come back into her life as she has spent a long time "trying to get away from him." She wants to be left alone. She has engaged in a lot of counselling. She has not been allotted a full opportunity to heal to date as the matter has been ongoing before the Court and the process has been a very difficult one for her.

Background of Mr. A.J.E.

I received a Pre-sentence Report regarding Mr. A.J.E. which provided me with the following information.

Mr. A.J.E. is now 31 years of age.

He was born in Etobicoke.

His parents separated when he was seven years of age. He and his brother remained with their mother and his father paid child support. He visited his father every other weekend until he was in grade nine at which point he relocated to his father's residence. His childhood was "ok" when the "folks were together", but things changed when his step-father moved in to their home. His step-father was a police officer and was very stern and angry. His step-father would pick him up and push him down repeatedly or he would hold him against the wall and punch the wall beside him. Mr. A.J.E. believes that his step-father used these scare tactics to address his acting out behavior. His brother was more reclusive and studied more whereas he took the opposite approach to the familial situation and rebelled. He engaged in this acting out behavior with the hope of being sent to reside with his father. His behavior became progressively worse as he aged and when he wasn't "pissing" his step-father off everything was in order. His relationship with his step-father improved once he left his residence.

He went to reside with his father when he was in grade nine and his father took a different approach in addressing his acting out behavior, namely he talked to him and did not ground him. He took advantage of the new environment and began skipping classes at school which infuriated his father. After he left school and his father's residence he lived on the streets and "bounced between houses."

His brother committed suicide in 2009 by hanging himself in the downstairs storage locker of the apartment building in which he was residing with Mr. A.J.E. at the time. The two brothers shared a very close relationship. The police called upon Mr. A.J.E. to identify his brother's body in the basement of the apartment and this caused him to "go over the edge."

However, he never pursued any type of counselling following his brother's passing.

He also has an older sister from his father's previous relationship who resides "somewhere up North". They do not have frequent contact and mostly leave comments on Facebook.

His mother is retired and resides in Toronto with her husband and his father resides in Burlington with his wife.

He had consistent contact with his mother when he was out of custody and she gave him a lot of money over the years so that he could purchase groceries. She is the only family member that has visited him in jail. He has had very minimal contact with his father for a number of years.

He attended three different elementary schools. He saw a counsellor at the second school but could not recall the reason for this. He was picked on by his peers in elementary school.

He attended a Catholic Secondary School from grades nine through to grade 11 and earned a minimal amount of credits in grade nine and ten. He often failed to attend his classes. As a direct result he was placed in a special program to address his truancy and lack of engagement in his studies. He was suspended from this program during grade 11 and decided to leave school at that time. He has not pursued any form of upgrading since leaving school.

He secured his first job at a fast food restaurant when he was in grade nine and worked there for approximately two years. After he left he "bounced around" and held numerous jobs including but not limited to general labourer, warehouse help, factory line worker, construction worker and roofer. He was also employed by restaurants and landscaping companies and secured his employment predominantly through temporary employment agencies. He was usually employed at his jobs for approximately one year and when he became bored or felt that his work was redundant he would quit or get fired. At times he was fired for taking too many sick days and on other occasions as a result of poor work performance. He has had so many jobs that it is difficult for him to recall the particulars of his work history. He does hold a valid forklift ticket.

He was approved by the Ontario Disability Support Program in the fall of 2016 and did receive cheques prior to being remanded into custody. He qualified for this due to his anxiety, depression and mental health issues.

He began consuming alcohol in grade nine with friends. As a teenager he would "buy alcohol and get drunk" however, he rarely consumed alcohol prior to being remanded into custody. He enjoys a beer here and there and he used to consume alcohol when in a relationship with CG as she "used to drink a lot."

He has been smoking marijuana since the age of 12-13 years but does not smoke nearly as much as in previous years. Marijuana became a medication for him that peaked following the death of his brother. When he started to date CG he was able to stop using marijuana for three months and later he "tried to stay off as much as possible when in her presence." Following the passing of his brother he was "heavily into crack" until 2011/2012 and then his use subsided to once per month. After he met CG he stopped using crack as she was his "high." During his secondary school years he also experimented with mushrooms, ecstasy, hash oil and crystal from marijuana. He also experimented with crystal methamphetamine and "oxys" years ago.

In his leisure time he watches movies, plays video games and added that when he had a dog he took him out for walks. When not in the company of someone else, he does not really do anything.

He does not have many friends. Further, his previous friends were a negative influence in that they were users of marijuana.

He has several outstanding debts at cash money establishments, an outstanding $1800 fine for driving without insurance, he believes that he owes Support and Housing Halton "a couple of months' rent", he owes his parents money for the car which they purchased for him, he owes Ontario Works a back payment and he owes a couple of banks funds.

He has never been married and he does not have any children. He had one previous relationship which lasted a period of seven days when he was in secondary school. He advised that he met CG in 2015 when they were both patients at a hospital in Oakville.

Medical records note that since 2002 Mr. A.J.E. attended at hospital and/or was hospitalized on seven different occasions, including four in 2015. Following his admission in October, 2015 he signed himself out against medical advice after a week and then returned eight days later. After each hospital visit, follow up appointments were scheduled for him with a psychiatrist and his family physician. There is no evidence in the medical records however that he followed up with any of the recommendations made by the attending physicians at the hospital. At his visit with his family physician in January 2017 medical records noted that he had not been in contact with his physician for over a year and that he was requesting a psychiatric evaluation. He made the same request nine months later when he was brought to the hospital in September of 2017 but did not attend any appointments in the community prior to his remand into custody.

He is currently prescribed Prozac and Seroquel. He had been prescribed medication in 2015 but he ceased taking it as it was "screwing" with his vision.

The author of the Pre-sentence Report suggested that he would benefit from a structured environment in which he could actively address his substance abuse and mental health issues on a consistent basis. An aftercare program that would reinforce his accomplishments and support his treatment goals in the community would also be of great benefit.

Analysis

Doherty J.A. aptly described my task here when he began the judgment in R. v. Hamilton, supra by stating:

The imposition of a fit sentence can be as difficult a task as any faced by a trial judge.

No sentence can adequately put a value on the harm done to a victim. It certainly cannot undo what was done to CG.

Further, sentencing is not an exact science. The determination of the sentence that is just and appropriate in a given case is "a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation."

General deterrence and denunciation are clearly the most important principles of sentence in this case, but I must not lose sight of the other principles.

I must craft a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of Mr. A.J.E. and yet, at the same time, one that is responsive to his unique circumstances.

I must consider both the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors when determining the appropriate sentence here.

The aggravating circumstances can be found in the facts surrounding the offences.

Mr. A.J.E. penetrated CG's vagina with both his finger and his penis while she was unconscious. Not only was she incapable of consenting at that point, prior to losing consciousness, she had expressly stated that she did not wish to participate in further sexual activity at that time.

Then, apparently not satisfied with this physical violation of her body, he video-recorded segments of these acts. The significance of this is reflected in CG's Victim Impact Statement where she wrote that "the video will forever be burned into my memory".

CG had a history of mental health issues that she sometimes aggravated by using alcohol. She was in a particularly vulnerable position and all of this was known to Mr. A.J.E. before he took advantage of her in the way that he did.

The absence of a relationship of trust within the meaning of the Criminal Code is not a mitigating factor. If there was such a trust relationship that would be deemed to be an aggravating factor under section 718.2(a)(iii) of the Code. I find that this section is not applicable here but CG did trust Mr. A.J.E. as a close friend and sometimes intimate partner. The existence of this relationship, combined with her vulnerability is an aggravating factor here.

Following the first offence, it took a while but over time, Mr. A.J.E. was able to resurrect that trust that she had in him and they resumed their relationship. Then, more than ten months after the first sexual assault, he did almost the same thing again despite knowing the impact that the first offence had had on her. This time at least he did not video record the acts.

The impact on CG has been traumatic. In light of the fact that she has not recovered from this yet suggests that she might never do so.

There are also a number of mitigating factors in this case.

Mr. A.J.E. pled guilty. I take this to be an acceptance of responsibility as well as an expression of remorse. Most importantly, it made it unnecessary for CG to testify. She was spared the ordeal of revisiting her victimization in a public courtroom. I give Mr. A.J.E. a great deal of credit for this despite the argument by Crown counsel that the guilty plea was simply a recognition by him of the inevitable outcome of a trial in light of the video evidence. Not every accused pleads guilty in the face of such inevitable outcomes. Mr. A.J.E. did and I give him full credit for it.

I also note that Mr. A.J.E. of his own volition went to the police after the first offence and confessed his guilt to them.

Following the second offence, he was arrested and he freely confessed to that offence.

The record clearly establishes genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

He had no prior criminal record.

There are a number of factors which are neither aggravating nor mitigating and I will not be including them in my determination of the appropriate sentence here. These include the following.

There was no gratuitous violence beyond what was necessary to accomplish the assault. That is not mitigating. It is the absence of an aggravating factor.

Although he provided the alcohol on the second occasion, Mr. A.J.E. did nothing to render CG unconscious so that he could assault her. She was unconscious as a result of the substances she herself took. Mr. A.J.E. then took advantage of her state to have sex with her after she had refused him while conscious. Again, this is not a mitigating factor. It would simply be worse if he were directly responsible for her unconscious state.

Lack of planning and deliberation is not a mitigating factor. At most, it could be the absence of an aggravating factor.

I do note that Mr. A.J.E. has had a hard life himself. Mental health issues include depression and anxiety. He has tried to harm himself. All of this has been made worse by him abusing alcohol and other substances. He clearly needs professional help. I am concerned however that there appears to be a consistent pattern of him failing to follow through with anything that has been recommended to him for the purpose of addressing his difficulties.

He also does not appear to appreciate the full impact of his actions on CG or the fact that she wants to have nothing further to do with him in the future.

He does not have strong support in the community and that too causes me concern with regard to his prospects for future rehabilitation.

After considering all of the above, I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence for each offence is imprisonment for two years.

I am also satisfied that the sentences should be consecutive to each other. These were two separate sexual assaults. The second one occurred more than 10 months after the first one. Clearly, separate legal interests are implicated in these two incidents.

Finally, I am satisfied that taking totality into account, I should reduce the overall sentence by eight months. A major factor in this decision is that Mr. A.J.E. has never been convicted of a crime before, let alone sent to jail, let alone sent to the penitentiary. The sentence I am imposing is a significant one for anyone. It is even more significant in the case of a first offender.

Sentence

For the above reasons, I sentence Mr. A.J.E. as follows:

With respect to the first sexual assault offence, Mr. A.J.E. is sentenced to time served, being pre-sentence custody of 227 days, credited as 340 days, plus further imprisonment for 140 days. That is intended to be the equivalent of a 16 month sentence.

With respect to the second sexual assault offence, Mr. A.J.E. is sentenced to imprisonment for two years, consecutive to the first sentence.

I also make the following ancillary orders.

These are primary designated offences and I make an order pursuant to section 487.051 of the Criminal Code, authorizing the taking from Mr. A.J.E. of any number of samples of one or more bodily substances, including blood, that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

These are also designated offences pursuant to section 490.011 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, I make an order pursuant to section 490.012 of the Criminal Code that Mr. A.J.E. comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life.

Pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code, for the next ten years Mr. A.J.E. is prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance.

Finally, pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, Mr. A.J.E. is prohibited from communicating in any way, directly or indirectly, with CG during the custodial period of his sentence.

Mr. A.J.E. will have one year following his release to pay the victim fine surcharges.

Released: May 7, 2018

Signed: Justice D.A. Harris