Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-40000249 DATE: 20170322 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Regina v Carleton Taylor
BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.
COUNSEL: Kathy Nedelkopoulos, for the Crown Marizio Stellato, for the defense
HEARD: Sentencing hearing: March 14, 2017
Sentencing Judgment
[1] Carlton Taylor pleaded guilty to being a party to a robbery that took place in the underground parking garage of a Toronto apartment building. After going through the guilty plea inquiry with Mr. Taylor, I accepted the plea and he was convicted of the robbery.
[2] Mr. Taylor played a relatively peripheral role in the robbery. The robbery was carried out by a number of perpetrators and was a terrifying experience for the victim, Reth Tork. It involving kidnapping Mr. Tork, forcing him into the trunk of his own car and driving out of the garage, taking his debit card and demanding his PIN number, and withdrawing funds from his account. There is no evidence that Mr. Taylor was involved in the violent part of the robbery, but he did plead guilty to being a party who sought to profit from the offence. He was seen on surveillance video in the company of the other accomplices to the robbery, and tried, unsuccessfully, to use Mr. Tork’s debit card after the incident at two separate banks.
[3] Mr. Taylor takes full responsibility for his part in the offence. He pleaded guilty and so saved the judicial system considerable time and expense.
[4] The Crown seeks a sentence of 4 years in custody, while the defense seeks a sentence of 2 years. Any custodial sentence must be reduced to take into account Mr. Taylor’s 317 days in pre-trial custody. At 1:1.5 that comes to a credit of 476 days.
[5] The four years sought by the Crown and the two years suggested by the defense are both within the range authorized by the relevant case law. Every sentencing, of course, is unique to its own set of facts and to the defendant’s own circumstances.
Background
[6] On the negative side, Mr. Taylor has a number of criminal antecedents. There are several drug trafficking, assault, and breaching recognizance convictions in his record. He reoffended while on probation in 2008. There is no indication of serious drug or alcohol use; rather, his past offences, like the present one, have mostly been for money.
[7] He has a grade 11 education. He advised the author of the Pre-Sentence Report that he is currently enrolled in school, but records show that he has only registered for one course and it appears that he did not actually do the course work.
[8] The victim of this crime, Mr. Tork, has provided a victim impact statement in which he says he was and still is very scared of being targeted again. Given that the offence came out of the blue for Mr. Tork, with no forewarning, this must have been a very disconcerting experience.
[9] As indicated, Mr. Taylor’s involvement in this offence was for financial gain. He has never had steady work, and has only been employed at short term odd jobs. He once took an electronics course, but dropped out after a couple of months and managed to amass an OSAP loan of $4,000. In custody he has done little in the way of education. Overall, he has taken very few “pro-social” initiatives. His biography, as set out in the Pre-Sentence Report, shows no real employment, education, or positive contributions to society.
[10] As counsel for the Crown summed it up, he is 27 years old and, “It does not appear that he has done much positive with his life.”
[11] On the other side of the ledger, Mr. Taylor has a good relationship with his son and, although he is no longer in a relationship with the mother of his son, she speaks well of him and says that he is supportive. He is now in a stable relationship with another woman, and also has a positive relationship with his mother with whom he intends to reside when his sentence is complete.
[12] Mr. Taylor states that he has a goal in terms of future employment, and that is to get into cooking. I note, however, that he does not appear to have done very much as yet to pursue that goal. In this regard, defense counsel explains that Mr. Taylor “is looking forward to tomorrow.”
Sentencing Principles and Factors
[13] In R v M (C), [1996] 1 SCR 500, at 566, Lamer CJC articulated the objectives of sentencing in an instructive way:
The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a delicate art which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offence, while at all times taking into account the needs and current conditions of the community.
[14] Counsel for the Crown and counsel for the defense both agree that a ‘2 year plus’ penitentiary term is required for a crime of violence like this, although with credit for pre-trial detention this may be substantially reduced. The key is to fashion a sentence that will go some way toward rehabilitating Mr. Taylor, while at the same time re-assuring the public that an effort is being made to deter any further offences.
[15] Considering the circumstances of the offense and of Mr. Taylor himself – especially his prior criminal record and his participation in the present offence for sheer financial gain – I do not think it appropriate to sentence Mr. Taylor at the lowest end of the 2 to 4-year range suggested by the defense and the Crown, respectively. At the same time, considering that he did not take part in the most violent part of the offense – his involvement was in the theft portion of the incident, not the terrorizing of the victim – I do not think it appropriate to sentence Mr. Taylor at the highest end of the range.
Sentence
[16] I hereby sentence Mr. Taylor to 3 years in custody, followed by 2 years’ probation. With credit for time served, Mr. Taylor has a remaining custodial sentence of 619 days, or 21 months and 9 days – to December 1, 2018.
[17] The terms of probation to be adhered to by Mr. Taylor are as follows:
- that upon completion of the custodial sentence, he will report to a probation officer as required;
- that he keep the peace and be on good behaviour;
- that he will have no communication or contact, direct or indirect, with Reth Tork, including in person, by telephone, digitally, or via any social media;
- that he not be on the property of 10 Eddystone Avenue, Toronto, ON;
- that he reside at a residence approved by the probation officer;
- that he attend any community programs and/or counselling deemed appropriate by the Probation Officer;
- that he seek and maintain suitable employment and/or education programming; and
- that he not possess any weapons.
Ancillary Orders
[18] In addition, the two ancillary Orders sought by the Crown are both granted. There will be a DNA Order and a section 109 firearms prohibition Order for 10 years.
Date: March 22, 2017 Morgan J.