ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NOS.: 12-40000 810-0000 &
13-40000 757-0000
DATE: 20131125
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
DEON EVANS
Kene Canton, for Her Majesty the Queen
J. Blair Drummie, for Deon Evans
DUNNET J.: (Orally)
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
[1] A blended voir dire took place before me to determine whether there was a violation of the rights of Deon Evans pursuant to s. 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and whether statements that he made to the police were voluntary.
[2] Following my ruling, Mr. Evans entered a plea of guilty to two robberies: the first was on January 7, 2011 at a Rogers store located at 5095 Sheppard Avenue East in Toronto; the second was on January 19, 2011 at a Rogers store located at 611 Kingston Road in Pickering. On both occasions, Mr. Evans had his face masked.
[3] In the first robbery, committed with Famien Morrison and Richard Olubusi, something that looked like a firearm was brandished. Crown counsel candidly admitted that he was unable to prove that a real firearm was used. Although the victim sustained no physical harm, the sum of $4100 was taken and none of the money has been recovered.
[4] Mr. Evans committed the second robbery with two other men. Two firearms were brandished. Again, the Crown was unable to prove that real firearms were used. Although the victims sustained no physical harm, the victim impact statement from Wael Al Achkar states that he has been permanently affected by the robbery both emotionally and financially.
[5] During this robbery, a large number of cell phones were removed and $200 was taken from the till. A cell phone and $130 were taken from one victim and a cell phone, $60 to $70 and jewellery were taken from the other victim. Nothing has been recovered.
[6] Mr. Evans admitted to the police that he agreed to participate in both robberies. By his plea, he consented to the use of imitation firearms and he had his face masked to protect his identity. His only motive was monetary gain.
[7] Mr. Evans has a criminal record for carrying a concealed weapon as a youth and assault and theft under $5000.
[8] On behalf of the Crown it is submitted that a three year custodial sentence, giving credit for time served is appropriate. The defence seeks a sentence of time served.
[9] At the time of these offences, Mr. Evans was nineteen years of age. He has a grade eleven education and plans to take a welding course and pursue a job in construction. He has family support from his step-mother and two sisters who are willing to permit Mr. Evans to live with them.
[10] Counsel for the Crown points out that as a result of Mr. Evans’s impulsive decision to participate in two robberies lasting a total of five minutes and fifty-two seconds, he has spent the past two and one-half years in jail.
[11] One would hope that this experience has curbed his impulsivity for crime.
[12] A letter to the court from Mr. Evans states that although he has made mistakes, his time in jail has caused him to realize that a life of crime is not for him or anyone else. He asks the court for an opportunity to become a law-abiding citizen. Clearly, this grave mistake on two occasions that lasted a little over five minutes appears to have curbed his impulsivity for crime.
[13] There is a high expectation of a lengthy prison sentence for robbery. See R. v. Bratzer (2001), 2001 NSCA 166, 160 C.C.C. (3d) 272 (N.S.C.A.). As I noted in R. v. Bogle, [2011] O.J. No. 2895 at para. 15, victims who work in small stores deserve special protection from the courts and the sentencing factor of rehabilitation would normally yield to that of general deterrence in cases of robbery.
[14] In this particular case, Mr. Evans is a youthful offender who made some bad choices. By his plea, he has exhibited remorse and has spared the victims the necessity to testify. He has a plan for his future and he has family support.
[15] Given that he has already spent two and one-half years in pre-trial custody, for which I give him credit on a one for one basis, I am of the view that a sentence of time served will address the applicable principles of sentencing and the circumstances of this young man.
[16] Mr. Evans, would you please stand.
[17] For these offences, I sentence you to time served plus one day. Fifteen months is apportioned to the first robbery and fifteen months is apportioned to the second robbery.
[18] In addition, there will be a mandatory order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting you from possessing weapons for ten years and an order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code to provide a sample of your DNA.
DUNNET J.
RELEASED: November 25, 2013
COURT FILE NOS.: 12-40000 810-0000 &
13-40000 757-0000
DATE: 20131125
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
DEON EVANS
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
DUNNET J.
RELEASED: November 25, 2013