COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-40000231-0000
DATE: 20200127
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: her majesty the queen,
AND:
kimyhel tewolde, Defendant
BEFORE: S.F. Dunphy J.
COUNSEL: Daniel DeSantis, for the Crown
Brian Irvine, for the Defendant
HEARD at Toronto: January 20, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] Mr. Tewolde is before me for sentencing today.
[2] On October 15, 2019 I convicted Mr. Tewolde of (1) possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code; (2) possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm without a license contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code; (3) possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so pursuant to s. 51(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act contrary to Criminal Code s.117.01(1); (4) possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000 contrary to Criminal Code S. 354(1) and (5) possession of cocaine for purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That same day I released written reasons on a voir dire seeking exclusion of the evidence of the offences seized by police which reasons contain a detailed review of the circumstances of these offences. I shall not repeat that review here.
Circumstances of the Offences
[3] On August 12, 2018, Mr. Tewolde’s mother led police to the family home and into the bedroom Mr. Tewolde shared with his then 17-year old brother. He was carrying his backpack in his hands. He was clearly headed out the door. The backpack he was carrying was emptied on to the bed by his mother in full view of police. She had thought to “scare him straight” by having police administer a stern talking-to about his marijuana abuse. She expected to find some personal-use marijuana in the backpack. Instead, she found quite a bit more than she expected. There was marijuana, and rather a lot of it although no charges were laid in respect of this. There was also obvious evidence of trafficking in narcotics and a quantity of what proved to be cocaine and a cutting agent. A subsequent search incidental to arrest revealed a loaded 9mm handgun tucked into his waistband in addition to a folded switchblade. At the time, Mr. Tewolde was subject to a weapons prohibition order made three years earlier in connection with a Youth Court conviction to which reference shall be made shortly.
[4] While Mr. Tewolde definitely did not appreciate it at the time, I am convinced that his mother saved his life that day. Saving his life was her intent all along even if her tough-love intervention uncovered a lot more than she expected. With time, Mr. Tewolde has now come to understand this as well. Armed as he was and clearly engaged in the illicit underground trafficking of narcotics, he was well on his way to becoming just another violent crime statistic - whether as victim or as perpetrator. With the path he was firmly set upon, it was only a matter of time.
[5] Counts 1, 2 and 3 reference the loaded 9mm Beretta handgun that was found while searching Mr. Tewolde incidental to arrest. That handgun had a chambered round and a magasine with nine further rounds. Count 4 refers to the sum of $867 that Mr. Tewolde had in his possession when he was arrested some or all of which was found by me to be proceeds of crime in light of the evidence of trafficking and his lack of any other source of income that could reasonably account for it. The amount of cocaine seized under Count 5 was 14.59g of cocaine.
Circumstances of the Offender
[6] Mr. Tewolde is 22 years of age today. He was 21 years of age on August 12, 2018 when he was apprehended. He is still a relatively young offender, but it is fair to observe that this is a descriptor that will not likely apply to him in future should he happen to get in trouble with the law again.
[7] Despite his young age, Mr. Tewolde has already amassed a number of criminal antecedents that I shall review in a moment. I observe that he has already been the beneficiary of the leniency our system attempts to show first-time and young offenders on those occasions. He received comparatively light sentences. He is no longer a first-time offender. Still, he continues to be entitled to some consideration from this court on account of his age.
[8] In September 2014 he was arrested for participating in an armed robbery while masked. He was 17 ½ years of age at the time and was tried in Youth Court. On August 18, 2015 he was convicted of the lesser offence of robbery and disguise with intent receiving a sentence of 24 months probation after credit for 54 days pre-sentence custody plus a weapons prohibition.
[9] He had difficulties in complying with the terms of his probation. On September 29, 2016 he was convicted of failing to comply with his sentence, failing to attend court and failure comply with a recognizance. He received a suspended sentence and 12 months probation – in adult court this time – in addition to 48 days pre-sentence custody. On October 6, 2016 he was convicted of possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon, breach of the weapons order made earlier and failure to comply with probation terms. I am advised that the weapon in question was a knife. Once again, he received a suspended sentence and 12 months probation with credit for a further 30 days of pre-sentence custody. Finally, on June 28, 2017 Mr. Tewolde was convicted of breaching his probation terms again, this time receiving a further term of probation of 12 months. His parole officer reported that he had difficulties in complying with the conditions of his parole – missing appointments and not completing programming. That is a potential problem to which I shall return.
[10] The pre-sentence report sheds some additional light on the background of Mr. Tewolde. He comes from a strict family that appears to have tried its best to instill values and discipline into him. However, the combination of his parents’ separation, the onset of adolescence and mixing with the “wrong crowd” as he began his high school years resulted in a young man making about as many wrong choices as he could cram into his brief life. He became a heavy user of marijuana – by his own admission he has only hazy memories of this period of his life so significant was the drug abuse he inflicted upon himself. He couch-surfed with friends rather than face the trouble he was in at home on occasion. He got into disciplinary trouble including expulsion and eventually left school without getting past Grade 10. His work history since has been essentially non-existent. He began selling narcotics to support his own habit.
[11] Needless to say none of this behaviour endeared him to his parents. He clashed with both of them. His hard-working parents valued education and were exasperated with a son who was clearly going off the rails. He soon got into trouble with the law as well as I outlined above.
[12] To this point, the story is a bleak one. His record betrays little sign that Mr. Tewolde has any intention of turning away from the path of self-destruction that he has been on for much of the last decade. Is Mr. Tewolde at the ripe old age of 22 years already a hardened criminal destined to return over and over again for one crime after the other? Is it time to attach greater weight to the risk he poses to society than to the prospects of rehabilitation and his youth?
[13] On the basis of all the evidence before me, I am not yet ready to reach the latter conclusion. He is by no means a hardened criminal, there is yet time for him to choose a different path and some evidence that he is beginning to do so.
[14] What signs are there that this time may be different? His family continues to offer considerable support. This ranges from being there for him every day in court to almost daily phone calls, visits and letters – not just from his parents but also his siblings. His parents have not given up – both are ready willing and able to have him come and live with them. They both feel that he is a good kid at heart who has lost his way but is in the process of finding his way back. Mr. Tewolde is showing signs of recognizing the need for change and acknowledging his own responsibility. He recognizes how much of his young life has already been lost in a haze of marijuana smoke through which he is able to see only pieces of his own recent past. He has shown some initiative while in custody and I am advised has completed his GED. These are all hopeful signs that rehabilitation is not a lost cause.
[15] I have carefully read the support letters Mr. Tewolde’s counsel has assembled including one from Mr. Tewolde. I heard Mr. Tewolde’s direct appeal to me in court when he exercised his right to address me at sentencing. Mr. Tewolde has not sought to shirk responsibility for his actions or deflect responsibility. He has frankly and openly owned up to what he has done. He has done so to the court and he has done so to his family.
[16] That is no small matter. All of us can find reasons to justify to ourselves the hurt we have caused others - it is a human trait as old as time. True change begins with confronting the truth. When we stop deluding ourselves, we can begin to take control of our destiny. His family have detected the change in him. Within the limits of the custodial environment he has been in these past 18 months – Mr. Tewolde has started to match his words with his actions. He has managed to complete his GED and wants to pursue a career in engineering. His father, who had all but stopped communication with him before, is offering to help train him and bring him to work.
[17] It is true that a few green shoots do not a Spring make. A lot of things will have to go right and stay right in Mr. Tewolde’s life before the risk of falling back into his old familiar ways can be safely relegated to the rear-view mirror. While I am not so naïve as to believe that no intoxicants ever make it past the high walls of the Toronto South Detention Centre, the outside world that he will return to has legal marijuana readily available. This is the very drug whose abuse played no small role in Mr. Tewolde’s downfall in the past.
[18] Mr. Tewolde has taken advantage of the programming that was available to him while in custody in Toronto South. It is clear to me that Mr. Tewolde could benefit from some serious counselling for his marijuana problem. It would be foolish of him to assume that just because he has not had access to marijuana in custody that he will be able successfully to keep that demon at bay without developing some serious strategies and self-discipline to deal with it.
[19] Mr. Tewolde has been in custody since the time of his arrest on August 12, 2018. This is by far the longest period of time he has been in custody. It has been tough medicine, but it seems clear to me that this has been the bucket of cold water over his head that Mr. Tewolde needed to reflect on where he has been and where he is headed if there is no serious change.
[20] I shall get the pre-sentence credit math out of the way at this point. Sentence is being handed down today (January 27, 2020). He has thus been in custody for a total of 533 days. That works out to one year plus 168 days. Applying pre-sentence credit of 1.5:1 in accordance with s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, he is entitled to 800 days of pre-sentence credit before consideration of the potential for additional credit due to harsh conditions: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
[21] Mr. Tewolde did not plead guilty. He brought a Charter application that did not succeed. He offered no contest on the merits of the case when that application failed. I do not view this circumstance as displaying any want of remorse or acceptance of responsibility on his part. While these circumstances do not rise to the level of a guilty plea in the hierarchy of mitigating circumstances, there is other evidence of remorse referred to earlier that I may give effect to and I must also note that the Charter case was efficiently prosecuted and got down to the real issues swiftly and efficiently.
Aggravating Circumstances
[22] Aggravating circumstances present in this case include:
a. Mr. Tewolde was on his way out the door with a concealed and dangerous firearm when he was arrested. He was not yet in public, but I have no difficulty in concluding that he was headed there. Travelling in public with a firearm that is accessible at a moment’s notice has been recognized as an aggravating circumstance. If possession of a loaded handgun represents a reckless menace to the community, carrying it in public operates in effect as a risk multiplier. Mobile and abroad in the community, the threat posed by the weapon puts at risk more and more potential victims;
b. The existence of a prohibition order and a prior conviction for breach of a prohibition order;
c. The possession of a folding knife in addition to the firearm; and
d. Possession of a firearm in connection with trafficking in narcotics is a toxic combination and is an aggravating factor. However, care must be taken not to double-count this aggravating factor by imposing a longer sentence for the gun and a consecutive sentence for the trafficking unless the aggregate sentence remains fit and proper.
[23] All of these I find proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mitigating Circumstances
[24] Mitigating circumstances include:
a. Mr. Tewolde has shown genuine remorse and full acceptance of responsibility as discussed above – both developments are rare, and both deserve recognition even in the absence of a guilty plea;
b. His young age (this is the last time he can expect to see any credit given on that score); and
c. I am convinced that Mr. Tewolde has bright prospects of rehabilitation due to his acceptance of responsibility referenced earlier but also due to a particularly strong pro-social family input in this case, the initiative he has shown in completing his GED, the willingness of his father to help get him some work experience and the ambition of pursuing post-secondary education that acquisition of a GED has at least made possible.
Duncan Credit
[25] A significant amount of evidence was assembled by the defence to meet its onus of demonstrating both the existence of harsh conditions and the effect of them upon the offender when seeking additional Duncan credit. Mr. Tewolde has been at Toronto South Detention Centre since his arrest. While not perhaps the dungeon of the public’s worst nightmares, it is quite fair to observe that years of administrative difficulties have resulted in the facility being perpetually understaffed. Sgt. Watson testified before me at Mr. Tewolde’s sentencing hearing and his testimony regarding the conditions at Toronto South generally was quite similar to his testimony as summarized by Schreck J. in R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188. Lockdowns are frequent and when they occur have a very significant impact upon the conditions of detention. Access to fresh air, showers, exercise, telephone calls to family - all of these can be cut back from the normal 13.5 hours per day to as little as 30 minutes per day at unpredictable times (or less) when a full lock-down is in effect.
[26] Full or partial lockdowns due to staff shortages are being inflicted upon the inmates of Toronto South on a distressingly regular basis. How regular? Mr. Tewolde has been in custody for 533 days. The centre had recorded 192 lockdown days affecting his range in the institution as of ten days ago. Mr. Tewolde reports at least two more since then and he believes (but had no records to prove) their records are incomplete for the prior period. This means that normal operations of the detention facility where he was held have been materially restricted 36% of the time. That’s considerably more than one week in every month. There is nothing temporary, exceptional or particularly excusable about this deplorable state of affairs.
[27] It is true that the great bulk of the lockdowns in evidence in this case were in fact listed as being due to “Staff Shortage”. However, not all were. There were others that were due to security searches arising out of a discrete incident or similar matters.
[28] At least one of the lockdowns was attributed by the institution to Mr. Tewolde being implicated in an incident – an incident that also involved other inmates. That incident gave rise to a disciplinary proceeding where a relatively minor punishment was meted out to him. There was a second incident recorded, but it is not clear that a lockdown resulted from it. It is not necessary for me to examine either incident in depth. Neither resulted in significant disciplinary actions and two lockdowns more or less in the evidentiary record do not alter the picture presented.
[29] It is also fair to note that many of the lockdowns were partial lockdowns and many of those occurred in the back half of the day within a few hours of normal lockup time. This resulted in a deprivation of privileges for a few hours as opposed to a full or nearly full day. The Crown also notes that Mr. Tewolde was able to pursue his programming – especially completion of his GED - despite the lockdowns. In that connection, Sgt. Watson confirmed that this program gets priority and continues to operate despite lockdowns. That being said, the impact of lockdowns should not be dismissed. On days where there is a full lock-down, as little as 30 minutes may be accorded to the inmate and even that small amount of time is not always scrupulously granted. Family may not be at home when access to the phone is granted. There may not be time to get a shower in and make a call. Choices between fresh air, stretching ones legs or having a shower must be made.
[30] The bottom line is that I think some significant recognition of the persistent and persistently unaddressed hardships visited upon Mr. Tewolde has been justified based on the particular facts and evidence placed before me. I should not be taken as applying a blanket “Toronto South discount” in sentencing. That is not this court’s role. There is a specific burden imposed upon an offender seeking to prove a case for Duncan credit and Mr. Tewolde has discharged that burden here. The harsh conditions of his detention must be reflected as a mitigating factor in the sentence ultimately handed down.
[31] I do not agree that a blanket .5 days credit per day in custody as advocated by Mr. Irvine is the way to go here. The Crown for its part suggested a credit of exactly 97 days, deploying a complex formula to account for the varying length of time of each of the lockdowns in evidence. That approach risks clothing the exercise with an artificial aura of mathematical certainty. There are a number of mitigating circumstances to be taken into account in sentencing and overall the process is not particularly amenable to a formulaic approach. I do not think it appropriate in this case at least to ascribe exactly 97 days to one mitigating factor if I am not prepared to ascribe a particular number of days to each of the others.
[32] I approach the matter somewhat differently. I view the conditions of Mr. Tewolde’s detention as a mitigating factor and one that justifies the imposition of a lighter sentence than might be the case in its absence. Without ascribing the artificial certainty of a formula in terms of days, weeks or months in credit, the reduction in sentence to account for this mitigating circumstance must be material and proportionate to the hardship suffered. I view the Crown’s suggested approach as being directionally correct. Were I to be compelled to attribute a precise figure, it should be somewhat longer than the 97 days suggested but of a similar order of magnitude. At the end of the day, the resulting sentence must be a fit and proper one in all of the circumstances, including this one.
Sentencing Principles
[33] Of the five offences for which Mr. Tewolde has been convicted, by far the most significant in my mind is his possession of a loaded handgun. There can be no question that deterrence and denunciation must clearly be at the forefront of the sentencing principles to be applied for this offence. This conclusion has been repeated in enough decisions at all levels of court that it hardly bears repeating. Handguns are a menace both to the person carrying them, to anyone in the area where they happen to be and to the persons who might find themselves on the receiving end of a bullet fired in anger, confusion or intoxication. They are a menace that is reaching crisis proportions in this community and it is important that any sentence handed down must take account of this. Related to these two is of course the necessity of protecting the society from an offender.
[34] Mr. Tewolde’s age entitles him to a significant degree of consideration but deterrence and denunciation quite largely override (but do not displace) the court’s solicitude towards the young offender. Youth are very largely represented among the dead and injured victims of this plague as well.
[35] Rehabilitation is always a significant aim in sentencing. I have already discussed at some length my views regarding the prospect of rehabilitation of this offender in these circumstances. It is a goal that cannot be lost sight of - in many ways it lies at the core of the entire criminal justice system. However, this goal too is demoted – but not displaced – by the overriding interest of society in deterrence and denunciation in these crimes.
[36] It is also important that breach of a prohibition order not get lost in the sentencing shuffle. Such orders are a key defence society uses to try to protect itself from the profusion of guns menacing the peace and tranquility of the community. Prior offenders cannot view such orders as a nuisance of little practical impact. They are not. A consecutive sentence rather than a concurrent one must be imposed.
[37] Finally, the totality principle must be the filter through which all else passes. A sentence which appears fit and proper when viewed in each of its constituent elements may be unfit and unjust when viewed in its full context. It is after all the total sentence that the offender must serve.
[38] If this non-exhaustive list of relevant factors seems somewhat disjointed, pulling now one way and now another, it is so by design. It is not for nothing that our courts often observe that the sentencing process is a highly individualized one.
Position of the Parties
[39] The Crown asked for a global sentence of five years in total broken down as follows:
a. Count 1 (loaded firearm): 3.5 years
b. Count 2 (Possession of unauthorized firearm): two years concurrent to Count 1;
c. Count 3 (breach of prohibition order): 6 months consecutive to Count 1.
d. Count 4 (proceeds of crime under $5000): 6 months concurrent to Count 1.
e. Count 5 (Trafficking cocaine): 1 year consecutive to counts 1 and 3.
[40] In terms of ancillary orders, the Crown sought:
a. S. 109 – lifetime order
b. DNA – not mandatory but requested as a secondary designated offence
c. Forfeiture of firearm, ammunition, folding knife
d. Forfeiture of all narcotics seized (cocaine plus marijuana)
e. Forfeiture of cash found to be proceds
[41] The defence took no issue with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown. However, the defence sought a full .5 days per day of custody as Duncan credit (267 days instead of 97 days) in addition to the 800 days of presentence credit I calculated earlier.
[42] In terms of sentence, the defence recognized that the weight of precedent and the parity principle made a request for a sentence below 3 years on Count 1 a difficult one to advance. Counsel also conceded that a consecutive sentence for breach of the prohibition order was in order for the same reason. A precise proposal was not made but the six-month consecutive sentence suggested by the Crown was not strongly resisted. The defence urged that all other sentences should be concurrent and not consecutive to Count 1 and, of course, under three years. Doing the math, the defence position of a 3.5 year global sentence would amount to less than a year remaining to be served (211 days to be precise).
[43] To this proposed reformatory sentence, it was conceded by the Defence that a term of probation of up to three years might be added and if so, subject to the probation terms recommended in the pre-sentence report.
Discussion and Analysis
[44] As hopeful as I am that Mr. Tewolde is about to finally turn the corner and leave the drug-soaked world of his teen years behind him, hope alone cannot guide the sentencing process. In my view, hope that Mr. Tewolde’s resolution to change will be matched by his actions is backed up here by some tangible progress. Mr. Tewolde’s family is wide-awake and they are engaged. Mr. Tewolde has shown real insight into his issues and has taken steps to improve himself by getting his GED.
[45] Against this, it must be acknowledged that the reality is that Mr. Tewolde, albeit a younger teen-aged Mr. Tewolde, has been shown leniency before and has nevertheless re-offended on this occasion. All allowances being made for his age, he chose to equip himself with an incredibly dangerous weapon and in so doing placed himself, his family and the community in deadly peril. The community cannot be left unprotected and it is entitled to a sentence that deters Mr. Tewolde and others from doing this and one that denounces this conduct adequately. This conduct cannot be tolerated.
[46] Plainly these considerations pull in opposite directions. Parity, denunciation and deterrence all strongly call for a sentence in respect of s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code that is at or above the higher end of the 36 to 42-month range that has been regularly given to first-time and young offenders in recent cases in this community. Counsel cited my own recent decision in R. v. Mohiadian, 2020 ONSC 47 which reviews some of that jurisprudence. At least some of the other charges – in particular the breach of the prohibition order - warrant consideration of an additional consecutive sentence.
[47] The Crown urged upon me the case of R. v. Le, 2014 ONSC 4288 that bears a significant number of parallels to this case. In Le, Campbell J. handed down a global five-year sentence to a 23-year old repeat offender for possession of a loaded firearm, breach of two prior prohibition orders, and possession of a similar amount of proceeds of crime and of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. While the age-related features of the case are indeed strikingly similar, there are other mitigating circumstances present in this case, including Duncan considerations, that justify a global sentence below that five year level.
[48] The Crown also referenced the decision of Trotter J. as he then was in R. v. Johnson, 2013 ONSC 4217 where a four year global sentence was handed down in broadly similar circumstances. The offender in Johnson was subject to removal from the country with out appeal by reason of his immigration status – a factor the mitigated his sentence materially.
[49] Having regard to all the circumstances here present, I have determined that a fit and proper sentence for Count 1 will be 1,155 days (i.e. approximately 38 months). There shall also be imposed a separate, consecutive sentence of 180 days (approximately 6 months) in respect of Count 3 (breach of prohibition order) for the reasons I have discussed earlier.
[50] Mr. Tewolde is entitled to a total of 800 days of pre-sentence custody credit as calculated above pursuant to s.719(3.1) of the Criminal Code. That results in a net sentence of 355 days remaining to be served in respect of Count 1 and 180 days for Count 3 for an aggregate time remaining to be served of 535 days. Please note that I have calculated all sentences in days to avoid any confusion in moving back and forth between years, months and days.
[51] All of the remaining sentences shall be served concurrently to Count 1 in light of the totality principle and the mitigating circumstances that I have discussed. They shall be broken down as follows:
a. Count 2 (unlicensed firearm): 24 months concurrent to count 1;
b. Count 4 (proceeds of crime): three months concurrent to count 1; and
c. Count 5 (trafficking): 24 months concurrent to count 1.
[52] It will not be lost on anyone looking at this sentence and the precedents that I have before me – and in particular the Le case that Crown counsel has urged upon me – that this is a lenient sentence. Mr. Tewolde you have convinced me to take a chance on you and I have given you the benefit of every credit or circumstance that I feel can reasonably be given in these circumstances. You should know that Crown counsel already set his recommendation at a relatively low level as well. This reflects the good impression you have made on people.
[53] I may be taking a chance on you with this sentence sir, but I’m also hedging my bets. The Criminal Code gives me the discretion to impose a term of probation that will ensure that there is a period of supervision to monitor your progress and help guard against back-sliding. You have not fared well under probation in the past. You were younger and less mature and now you have assured me and your family that you have truly changed. You will have a chance to show that those are not just hollow words. You are going to have to improve on that poor performance under probation last time or things will not go well for you. There will be consequences if you fail to obey the rules while on probation.
[54] There will be added to the sentence a term of probation of three years on the terms I shall describe below.
Disposition
[55] Mr. Tewolde please stand as I read out your sentence. Mr. Tewolde I am sentencing you as follows:
a. Count 1 – possession of loaded firearm: 1,155 days;
b. Count 2 – unlicensed firearm: two years concurrent to Count 1;
c. Count 3 – (breach prohibition order): 180 days consecutive to Count 1;
d. Count 4 - (proceeds of crime): 90 days concurrent to Count 1;
e. Count 5 – (trafficking): two years concurrent to Count 1;
f. Pre-sentence custody credit of 533 days credited at the rate of 1.5:1 for a total credit of 800 days; and
g. Probation shall be for a period of three years following completion of the term of prison stipulated subject to the following terms:
i. Report to your probation officer as directed;
ii. Attend counselling as directed by your probation officer and sign any required waivers or releases to permit release of information and monitoring of progress;
iii. Make reasonable efforts to secure and maintain full-time employment or to attend school on a full-time basis and report regularly on progress and efforts made;
iv. Abstain from owning, possessing or carrying any weapon as defined in the Criminal Code; and
v. Abstain from the purchase, possession or consumption of drugs including cannabis without a prescription from a licensed Medical Doctor (not a different practitioner) and then only pursuant to such prescription.
[56] The following ancillary orders shall also be made:
a. S. 109 – lifetime order
b. DNA order
c. Forfeiture of firearm, ammunition and folding knife seized
d. Forfeiture of all narcotics seized (cocaine plus marijuana)
e. Forfeiture of seized cash as proceeds of crime
[57] A copy of my reasons will go along with you in your file for review by the prison and parole authorities in due course.
[58] You will have some work to do to demonstrate that you have earned the confidence your family has shown they have in your future. You will notice that I have largely followed the pre-sentence report recommendations regarding parole conditions. I have modified them slightly. You should not be going near marijuana for quite a long time if ever and nothing short of a prescription from an actual medical doctor – not another type of practitioner – should alter that recommendation. I am also recommending that your probation officer give careful consideration to an addiction control program – preferably one focused on marijuana – to help you develop the tools and self-discipline you will need to stay on top of that problem.
[59] You have some time left to serve. That is part of the process of accepting full responsibility for the mistakes you have made. I hope and trust that the young man emerging at the end of this process will have the bright future his family dreams of for him.
S.F. Dunphy J.
Date: January 27, 2020