ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. McCue, 2022 ONCJ 118

DATE: March 10, 2022

COURT FILE No.: 20 38105316; 2138105317;2138100945;2138101489

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

— AND —

BRANDON MCCUE

Before Justice Angela L. McLeod

Judicially pretried on May 3, 2021, and January 26, 2022

Plea and sentencing January 28, 2022, and February 17, 2022

Alexander Thomas Morris............................................................... counsel for the Crown

John Raftery..................................................................................... counsel for the accused

McLeod J.:

OVERVIEW

[1] Mr. McCue pled guilty to: 29 July 2020 – possession for the purpose of trafficking, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(2); 19 February 2021 – possession for the purpose of trafficking, CDSA s. 5(2); 10 January 2021 – breach of a release order; and 21 March 2021 – simple possession, CDSA s. 4(1);

[2] One of his coaccused resolved their matters via a statutory declaration. His guilty pleas have eliminated the need for 4 separate trials.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

[3] On July 29, 2020, Mr. McCue was under surveillance. A CDSA search warrant had been issued. He was arrested. Search incident to arrest located 17 grams of Fentanyl on his person.

[4] On January 10, 2021, the Salvation Army Bail Program Co-ordinator called police. Mr. McCue, who was on conditions requiring him to reside at the mission, was seen using drugs with another resident.

[5] On February 19, 2021, Mr. McCue was arrested pursuant to a warrant for failing to comply with his release order. Search incident to arrest located 15.5 grams crack cocaine, a digital scale, a large hunting knife and a cell phone in the vehicle. Also located was $735 cash, 3.7 grams grey Fentanyl, 22 grams purple Fentanyl and 24.5 grams powder cocaine on his person.

[6] On March 21, 2021, police conducted a routine traffic stop. Mr. McCue was one of the 4 vehicle passengers. Occupants were arrested on outstanding warrants. Mr. McCue was arrested for an allegation of identity fraud. Search incident to arrest located 1 gram purple Fentanyl, 6.6 grams blue Fentanyl, 0.8 grams pink Fentanyl, 0.6 grams blue Fentanyl, 7.7 grams pink Fentanyl, a scale, 2 crack pipes, $60 cash, 3 phones. The total Fentanyl was 16.7 grams.

[7] The parties agree that Mr. McCue is responsible for 4.1 grams of Fentanyl and $120 cash located on his person. He was on a release order at the time with conditions to not possess any drug paraphernalia and to remain in his residence at all times.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[8] The provincial Crown seeks 15 days custody for the breach of release order count.

[9] The federal Crown seeks a global sentence of 7 years, less 355 PSC (to today’s date) enhanced at a rate of 1.5 for a total of 533 days. Ancillary orders sought are a s. 109 for life, a DNA order and a forfeiture order (not including $2365 cash which is to be returned).

[10] The defence made no submission as to the appropriate sentence but advised that they were not joining the Crowns in their respective positions. Mr. Raftery simply noted that Mr. McCue was committed to treatment.

[11] Mr. McCue’s criminal record was filed as Exhibit #1. A letter authored by Mr. McCue was filed as Exhibit #2. A letter/wellness plan authored by Mr. Cliff Sharpe, Elder Knowledge Keeper and Native Inmate Liaison Officer, was filed as Exhibit #3.

[12] A Gladue report was not sought. No Gladue submissions were made.

MR. McCUE’S PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

[13] Mr. McCue is 37 years of age. He is Indigenous and a member of the Beausoleil First Nations, Christian Island, and a member of the Otter Clan. His spiritual name is Early Morning Thunder.

[14] Both of his parents are deceased. He has three sons, 18, 17 and 5 years old. Each child lives with their respective mother. He does not have a relationship with family members “because a lot of them drink and use drugs and I’ve got to separate myself from those types of people.”

[15] His addiction issues are long standing, although Fentanyl is a relatively new drug to him. He has been previously sentenced to the Ontario Correctional Institute, but he notes that he “didn’t fully commit and had a bad relapse.”

[16] He experienced racism as a child, which made him feel “sad and embarrassed.” He has been actively engaged with the NILO program while in recent custody. He has earned certificates for programs including, ‘Change is a Choice’, ‘Goal Setting’, ‘Thoughts and Actions’, ‘Substance Use’, and, ‘Changing Habits’. In his letter to the court, he wrote,

I’m not going to waste any more time struggling with my addiction, and I am truly going to start exercising all the tools I’ve learned through past treatment attempt’s or actually I’m going to go through one more cultural treatment centre that is based around my cultural needs – because when I walk the red road, I feel honored to be First Nations and a lot of cravings and negativity is cleansed out of me. I’m proud of who I am and where we’ve come from, still on top even through all our past trauma’s in life for centuries now.

[17] Mr. McCue is a talented barber and has a goal to open a barber shop. Elder Sharpe notes that Brandon is one of 230 Native inmates, which is 25% of the population at CNCC. Brandon has made an application to Native Horizon, which is a four-week program and has applied to Gwekwaadziwin Miikan Mental Health and Addiction Treatment, which is a three month land based treatment program. Elder Sharpe notes that as soon as sentence is imposed, and a release date is known, Brandon will begin his treatment for drug related issues. He is requesting that any further incarceration be served at either the Algoma Treatment Center or the Ontario Correctional Institute.

[18] Mr. McCue’s criminal record begin in 1997 (when he would have been just 13 years old) and contains more than 100 convictions. Approximately 55% of those are offences against the administration of justice, 40% are property offences and just 5 convictions are for simple possession of narcotics (3 of which are in 2019). The most significant sentence for drugs was 180 days custody.

CASE LAW and LAW RE INDIGENOUS OFFENDERS

[19] Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada states:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victim or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[20] In R. v. Gamble, 2021 SKCA 72, the Court noted that:

40 In Gladue and R v Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 SCR 433, the Supreme Court affirmed that s. 718.2(e) is designed to ameliorate the problem of overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples in Canadian prisons. The Court held that it requires judges to use a different method of analysis for determining a fit sentence for an Aboriginal person (Ipeelee at para 59). That methodology focusses on the unique circumstances of an Aboriginal offender that could reasonably and justifiably affect his or her sentence.

41 Speaking more particularly, systemic and background factors may bear on the culpability or moral blameworthiness of the offender and thereby impact the nature of a fit sentence (Ipeelee at para 73). As well, consideration of the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions that may be available might suggest that an alternative to a custodial sentence can achieve the necessary sentencing objectives. See: R v Chanalquay 2015 SKCA 141 at paras 39-41, [2016] 4 WWR 242.

42 There is no discretion in any of this. The sentencing judge must consider the situation of an Aboriginal offender (Ipeelee at para 86). As the Supreme Court said in Ipeelee at paragraph 85, "the only discretion concerns the determination of a just and appropriate sentence".

43 All of that said, s. 718.2(e) is not an unvarnished direction to impose shorter sentences on Aboriginal offenders. That point was made as follows in Chanalquay:

[38] Further, and relatedly, s. 718.2(e) and the Gladue analysis mandated by it do not automatically trump or displace other sentencing considerations and objectives. More particularly, s. 718.2(e) does not require that Aboriginal offenders always be sentenced in a manner which gives greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice, as opposed to goals such as deterrence, denunciation and separation (Gladue at para 78). As the Supreme Court has said, "The analysis for sentencing aboriginal offenders, as for all offenders, must be holistic and designed to achieve a fit sentence in the circumstances" (Gladue at para 81). In other words, Gladue considerations should not drive a judge to ignore other sentencing principles and objectives. The question in sentencing an Aboriginal offender, as for other offenders, will always be "For this offence, committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community, what is the appropriate sanction under the Criminal Code?" (Emphasis in original) (Gladue at para 80)

44 An obvious question arises from all of this. How is a judge to obtain the information required to make a sentencing decision as per the dictates of Gladue and Ipeelee? The Supreme Court has provided guidance on this front. As for the broad systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people generally, Ipeelee instructs that sentencing judges have an obligation to take judicial notice of such matters:

[60] Courts have, at times, been hesitant to take judicial notice of the systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people in Canadian society (see, e.g., R. v. Laliberte, 2000 SKCA 27, 189 Sask. R. 190). To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples. These matters, on their own, do not necessarily justify a different sentence for Aboriginal offenders. Rather, they provide the necessary context for understanding and evaluating the case-specific information presented by counsel. ... (Emphasis in original)

45 With respect to the information bearing particularly on the individual offender who is before a sentencing judge, Ipeelee, at paragraph 60, advises that "[c]ounsel have a duty to bring that individualized information before the court in every case, unless the offender expressly waives his right to have it considered". This echoes the comment in Gladue to the effect that "it will be extremely helpful to the sentencing judge for counsel on both sides to adduce relevant evidence. Indeed, it is to be expected that counsel will fulfil their role and assist the sentencing judge in this way" (at para 83). There are, self-evidently, various ways in which this can be done: (a) evidence from the offender; (b) evidence from other individuals in possession of relevant information (for example, the particulars of the offender's background, existing situation, treatment needs, programming options and so forth); (c) the submissions of counsel; and (d) reports prepared specifically for the purpose of presenting relevant information to the sentencing judge including, of course, a PSR prepared as per s. 721 of the Criminal Code. See: R v Park 2016 MBCA 107 at para 27, 343 CCC (3d) 347; R v Peekeekoot 2014 SKCA 97 at para 118, 446 Sask R 22.

46 Gladue also instructs that, when counsel do not adduce the necessary evidence, "it is incumbent upon the sentencing judge to attempt to acquire information regarding the circumstances of the offender as an aboriginal person" (at para 84). Similarly, the Court observed in R v Wells 2000 SCC 10 at para 54, [2000] 1 SCR 207, that "even where counsel do not provide the necessary information, s. 718.2(e) places an affirmative obligation upon the sentencing judge to inquire into the relevant circumstances". See also: R v Wolfleg 2018 ABCA 222 at para 61, 363 CCC (3d) 168. All of this is no doubt rooted in s. 723(3) of the Criminal Code which provides that a sentencing judge may, on his or her own motion, after hearing argument from the prosecutor and the offender, "require the production of evidence that would assist [him or her] in determining the appropriate sentence".

47 The overriding imperative in all of this is to ensure that the sentencing judge has the benefit of the information necessary to allow him or her to give meaningful effect to s. 718.2(e). The emphasis in this regard must be on substance not form, on content not packaging. It matters not whether the relevant information comes before the sentencing judge in a document with the label "Gladue report" or whether it comes before him or her in a PSR or, for that matter, by way of the testimony of the offender, the submissions of counsel, or some other way or combination of ways. The question will always be whether, at the end of the day, the judge has the information necessary to allow him or her to give effect to s. 718.2(e). See: Peekeekoot at para 118; R v Lawson 2012 BCCA 508 at paras 26-27, 294 CCC (3d) 369; Wolfleg at para 52; R v Bonnetrouge 2017 NWTCA 1 at para 24.

[21] Indigenous offenders are not required to prove a causal connection between the systemic or background factors of the offender and the offence. The court must consider the extent of these factors upon the impact of the offender’s moral blameworthiness.

[22] In R. v. Swampy, 2017 ABCA 134 at paragraph 36, the court held that “[t]here cannot be sound proportionality analysis in the case of an Aboriginal offender without considering the impact of the offender’s Aboriginal heritage on his moral culpability. This is the Court’s responsibility.”

[23] In R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, at paragraph 73, the court held that

Canadian criminal law is based on the premise that criminal liability only follows from voluntary conduct. Many Aboriginal offenders find themselves in situations of social and economic deprivation with a lack of opportunities and limited options for positive development. While this rarely – if ever – attains a level where one could properly say that their actions were not voluntary and therefore not deserving of criminal sanction, the reality is that their constrained circumstances may diminish their moral culpability…Failing to take these circumstances into account would violate the fundamental principle of sentencing – that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[24] In assessing moral blameworthiness, a jurist must undertake an analysis of the accused’s social context. R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680.

CASE LAW RE FENTANYL SENTENCING RANGE

[25] The Federal Crown filed but made no reference to the following cases: R. v. Cinelli, 2018 ONSC 4983; R. v. Palacio, 2019 ONCJ 429; and R. v. Piri, 2020 ONSC 920.

[26] In Cinelli, supra, the offender was in possession of 63 grams of heroin, 20 grams of Fentanyl, $3260 in cash, a scale and 5 syringes. Then he was found to be in possession of 9.2 grams of heroin which was packaged for sale. On a third occasion he was found to be in possession of $2020 in cash, 7.6 grams of heroin and 0.8 grams of Clonazepam. Some of the facts were read in pursuant to Garcia and Silva.

[27] Justice Bawden described the Fentanyl crisis in paragraphs 16-18:

[16] The Crown has filed materials to prove what is quickly becoming a notorious fact: fentanyl is killing young people across the country and the rise in mortality is growing exponentially. It has created a public health crisis which is of a different dimension than anything that Canada has ever seen from the sale of illicit drugs.

[17] Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid which falls into the same class of drugs as morphine and heroin. It is estimated to be 20 to 50 times more potent than heroin. Fentanyl is prescribed medically for the treatment of chronic pain and, when prescribed medically, it is commonly administered through slow release patches. There is a vast illicit market for medically prescribed fentanyl patches which can be smoked or chewed in order to accelerate the absorption of the drug.

[18] Although there are significant dangers to the rapid consumption of fentanyl patches, those dangers pale in comparison to the dangers of consuming fentanyl powder. Fentanyl powder is typically synthesized in China. The drug can be snorted, injected, smoked or even absorbed through the skin. Fentanyl powder presents an enormous risk to first responders who must constantly guard against the possibility of toxic exposure to fentanyl.

[28] Justice Bawden was provided with a number of studies and reports. He drew the following facts:

a. 3,987 deaths in Canada in 2017 were apparently caused by opioid overdose and 92% of those deaths were deemed to have been accidental.

b. The high incidence of accidental overdose is largely explained by the fact that fentanyl powder is visually indistinguishable from heroin, oxycodone and cocaine. Fentanyl is commonly combined with those opioids in order to maximize the effect of the drug at minimal cost to the dealer.

c. A dose of fentanyl powder as small as 2 milligrams can be lethal. To put this in perspective, the 20 grams of fentanyl which Mr. Cinelli possessed on March 28th could potentially furnish 10,000 lethal doses of the drug.

d. The number of accidental deaths involving fentanyl or fentanyl analogues across the country increased by 81% between 2016 and 2017. The predominant cause of these deaths is the unintentional consumption of fentanyl mixed with opioids such as heroin and cocaine.

e. Over the past five years, Emergency Department visits across country relating to opioid poisoning have increased by almost 50% with the greatest number of admissions involving young people between the ages of 25 to 44.

f. The annual rate of opioid related death increased by 285% from 1991 to 2015. 2018 ONSC 4983 Page: 8

g. In the Province of Ontario, 481 people died in car accidents 2014. In the same year, 676 people died from opioid overdose. The number of overdose deaths in Ontario increased to 1,276 in 2017.

h. There was a 41% increase in overdose deaths in the City of Toronto between 2004 to 2013

i. To illustrate the currency of the crisis, on August 14th, 2018, (three days prior to the sentencing of Mr. Cinelli), the Toronto Police Service released the following public safety alert: Since Thursday, August 2, 2018, police officers have been called to a number of overdoses, seven of which have proven fatal. It is believed that the drugs responsible are a deadly batch of fentanyl or carfentanil.”

[29] Justice Bawden reviewed the mitigation of sentence for an addict trafficker. He wrote:

[29] It is common for drug traffickers to also be drug users. Mid and high level traffickers have historically taken advantage of addicted drug users to distribute their product while insulating themselves from police scrutiny. In circumstances where the facts establish a causal connection between a drug addiction and trafficking in narcotics, courts have recognized the addiction as a significant mitigating circumstance.

[30] The fact that a trafficker is also a user is not, in and of itself, a mitigating factor. In Holt 1983 CanLII 3521 (ON CA), [1983] 4 CCC (3d) 32, the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to reduce the accused’s sentence for trafficking when he had been unable to show a causal connection between his addiction to heroin and trafficking in heroin. The court came to a similar conclusion in Barham 2014 ONCA 797 stating: 2018 ONSC 4983 Page: 12 “In order for mental health issues and addiction to be considered as mitigating factors, there must be some connection between those matters and the criminal conduct at issue.”

[30] Mr. Cinelli had a lengthy criminal record. His prospects for rehabilitation was found to be ‘uncertain at best’. He was sentenced to 7 years custody for the count relating to Fentanyl and 7 years concurrent custody for the count relating to the heroin.

[31] In Palacio, supra, the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate sentence was 7 years custody. Justice Kenkel accepted and imposed that sentence, noting that it fell at the lowest end of the range of the circumstances of the offences and the offender.

[32] The following drugs were seized from Mr. Palacio:

• 499.42 grams of crystal methamphetamine
• 64.81 grams of cocaine
• 44.71 grams of a fentanyl/heroin mixture
• 6.83 grams of heroin
• 1.3 grams of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)
• 16 capsules of amphetamine (5mgs/per)
• 19 tablets of clonazepam
• 1.5 pills of Xanax
• 20 pills of Alprazolam
• 5 tablets of hydromorphine (1mg/per)
• 3 capsules of hydromorphine (4.5mg/per)
• 2 capsules of Demerol (50mg/per)
• 14.19 Litres of gama-hydrozybutyrate (GHB)
• 16.92 grams of Psilocybin (magic mushrooms)

Additionally, the police also seized 3 sets of digital scales, 2 cellular phones, multiple Ziplock type baggies, 3 notebooks containing price and debt lists and a plastic bag containing baking soda.

[33] Justice Kenkel found as aggravating factors the defendant’s extensive, recent criminal record which included 7 convictions for drug offences with a prior high global sentence of 2 years and 6 months, that Mr. Palacio had just served a drug trafficking sentence when he was arrested, the variety and amounts of drugs seized and that he was trafficking at the mid to upper level.

[34] In Piri, supra, the facts were 0.96 grams heroin containing Fentanyl, $2990 in cash, 2.16 grams Fentanyl, 27.22 grams Fentanyl, $4500 in cash and 6.97 grams Fentanyl were seized.

[35] The crown sought a sentence of 7.5 years; the defence sought a sentence of 3.5 years to 4 years custody.

[36] Mr. Piri was an addict and had recently had some success with Methadone. He had a relatively minor criminal record, including one conviction for simple possession and one for trafficking. In both cases he had received a suspended sentence and probation.

[37] Justice Kelly was provided with a great deal of case law by both parties. Ultimately, he imposed a sentence of 6 years less credit for pre-sentence custody.

[38] The Crown’s cases are helpful only for the underlying principles of sentencing and the serious potential harm caused by Fentanyl. The cases do not deal with an Indigenous offender and are not factually aligned.

[39] Most recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, addressed the range for Fentanyl sentencing. The Crown appealed a 4-year sentence and the Court ultimately increased the sentence to 6 years.

[40] Justice Paciocco noted that the range for mid-level traffickers of cocaine is 5 to 8 years (paragraph 14). Fentanyl is a more dangerous drug than cocaine (paragraph 14). He noted that “[i]t is a well-established principle that drugs vary in the degree of danger that they represent to those who consume them. Consequently, the more dangerous the drug being trafficked, the higher the penalty that will be imposed. Fentanyl is now known to be a much more dangerous drug than almost any other.” (paragraph 15).

[41] Justice Paciocco noted that “moral culpability rises with the risk of serious harm the trafficker is prepared to expose others to.” He continued in paragraph 17:

There is good reason for this. The problems that dangerous drugs pose for our society are well known. They involved drug addiction, adverse health consequences and, unfortunately all too often, death. Further, drugs are often sold to already vulnerable people thereby exacerbating their difficult circumstances. Still further, there are the indirect costs to society through increased health care expense, increased demands on the health care system, increases in robberies or other forms of criminal activity, and increases in violence. Simply put, the greater those risks are when a particular drug is being trafficked, the greater the offender’s culpability or moral blameworthiness for choosing to traffic in that drug.

[42] Justice Paciocco underscored the court’s earlier decision in R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, at para. 50, “Generally, offenders – even first offenders – who traffic significant amounts of fentanyl should expect to receive significant penitentiary sentences.”

CASE LAW RE PRESENTENCE CREDIT AND CALCULATION

[43] Presentence custody is calculated at a rate of 1:1.5 as per R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 25.

[44] A sentencing jurist, during our current, on-going global pandemic, may decrease the overall sentence given what this court has labelled ‘prospective Hearns considerations’, that is to say that any further custody will be served in more difficult circumstances, with COVID infection concerns, reduced programming, reduced visitation, reduced movement within an institution (see R. v. Hearns, 2020 ONSC 2365 and R. v. Gabourie 2021 ONCJ 9).

[45] For exceptionally punitive presentence conditions, a sentencing jurist may decrease the overall sentence as per R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344. I take judicial notice of the fact that CNCC has been in almost constant lock down, day after day, due to staff shortages and other COVID issues including on-going out break status. I do so based upon the plethora of affidavits from the records department filed on an almost daily basis in plea court and communications from our Local Administrative Justice.

[46] I find that in these circumstances, exceptionally punitive presentence conditions are established.

ANALYSIS

[47] Mr. McCue was found to be in possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking; the amounts were 17 grams and 25.7 grams. He was later found to be in possession of Fentanyl for personal use; the amount was 4.1 grams.

[48] His guilty plea is mitigating, not only for the acceptance of responsibility, but for saving his coaccused extended jeopardy, saving the courts a considerable amount of potential trial time and for saving all potential witnesses from having to calculate the risk to their health by having to attend at a trial.

[49] I find that Mr. McCue is a low level, addict, trafficker. As such, his moral culpability is reduced.

[50] Mr. McCue has an extensive criminal record; however, the bulk of convictions are for offences against the administration of justice and property offences. His foray into drugs seems to solidly commence in 2019. Only 6 out of 100 convictions are drug related.

[51] Mr. McCue is Indigenous. His parents are deceased. His family members all struggle with drug and alcohol addictions. He has three sons from different relationships. All of his sons live with their mothers. He faced racism as a young person. He is aware that he and his family are suffering from multi-generational trauma. As such, his moral culpability is reduced.

[52] His incarceration and those of his fellow Indigenous inmates at CNCC are representative of the over incarceration of Indigenous peoples.

[53] Mr. McCue read his letter to the court. I find that his remorse is genuine. I find that his commitment to recovery is sincere. I find that his connection to his culture and spirituality is clear, strong and has been fortified by his engagement with NILO and Elder Sharpe in particular.

[54] Mr. McCue has applied to a number of treatment programs. He has a solid and well supported plan of release. He has not only a plan for employment, but for a career.

[55] Fentanyl abuse is a plague on our streets and is killing our communities. Those who profit from the sale of this destructor should expect significant sentences.

[56] I find that the offences constitute an on-going spree, fueled by personal addiction.

[57] I find that the just sanction, in all of the circumstances is a total global sentence of 4 years, less 533 days for a remanent sentence of 927 days. Ancillary orders will be a DNA order, a s. 109 order for life and a forfeiture order as per the draft.

[58] This can be assigned as follows:

(1) July 20, 2020 – Possession for the purpose of trafficking, 17 grams Fentanyl – 2.5 years or 913 days

(2) January 10, 2021 – breach of release order – 1 day concurrent to count #1

(3) February 19, 2021 – possession for the purpose of trafficking, 25.7 grams Fentanyl (and 15 grams crack cocaine and 24.5 grams powder cocaine) – 4 years or 1460 days less 533 days PSC for a remanent sentence of 927 days concurrent to count #1

(4) March 21, 2021 – simple possession, 4.1 grams Fentanyl – 45 days concurrent to count #1

[59] I want to again thank Elder Sharpe for his presence and his assistance in this matter.

Released: March 10, 2022.

Signed: Justice Angela L. McLeod