Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-30000371-0000 DATE: 20210310 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Her Majesty the Queen AND: Jessie Breese, Defendant

BEFORE: S.F. Dunphy J.

COUNSEL: Rosemarie Juginovic, for the Crown Stephanie DiGiuseppe, appearing as amicus curiae Jessie Breese, acting in person

HEARD at Toronto: December 11, 2020, February 19, 2021 and March 10, 2021

Reasons for Sentence

[1] On October 16, 2020, I convicted Mr. Breese of armed robbery (s. 344(1)(a) Criminal Code), possession of a loaded firearm (s. 95(1) Criminal Code) and reckless discharge of a firearm (s. 244.2(1) Criminal Code).

Preliminary matters – examination pursuant to s. 21(1) Mental Health Act

[2] Sentencing submissions were originally scheduled to be heard on December 11, 2020. On that day, I was advised of an issue that had come to the attention of Ms. DiGiuseppe, the amicus appointed in this matter. She advised me of evidence regarding Mr. Breese’s mental health that may give rise to questions regarding his degree of responsibility for the offences for which he was convicted. After hearing submissions, including from Mr. Breese, I ordered a psychiatric examination to be performed under s. 21(1) of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7.

[3] Dr. Patel conducted that examination and prepared a report that was delivered to me dated January 10, 2021. The parties returned before me to complete their submissions regarding sentence on February 19, 2021.

[4] While there were grounds laid before me on December 11, 2020 that raised a question of whether Mr. Breese was responsible for the actions underlying the charges on which he was convicted, I am satisfied based on Dr. Patel’s report that there are insufficient grounds present to proceed further in that inquiry. No objection was made to that preliminary conclusion expressed by me at the sentencing hearing and I confirm that finding here.

[5] Mr. Breese has represented himself throughout his trial and sentencing. The court has had the benefit of a very accomplished amicus who has had access to him from time to time in order to discharge her duties. In addition to the time she has spent with him, Mr. Breese has been present and interacting with me on a significant number of occasions. I have not been concerned about Mr. Breese lacking the capacity to undergo his trial even if some of his behaviour has raised concerns in my mind regarding his deteriorating state of mental health – a subject to which I shall return in my reasons regarding sentencing.

[6] While Dr. Patel’s report has been reviewed by me for the limited purpose of establishing whether the evidence that gave rise to my decision to order an examination in December 2020 warrants further action on my part (it does not), objection was taken to Dr. Patel’s report being referred to for sentencing purposes.

[7] The Crown advised that it did not intend to refer to Dr. Patel’s report for sentencing purposes. Ms. DiGiuseppe and Mr. Breese both concurred that I cannot refer to it because it has not been subjected to cross-examination. Their objection was well founded in my view and in light of the Crown’s concession that no reference to it was necessary for sentencing purposes, we proceeded to complete the sentencing hearing without adjourning it to permit cross-examination. Dr. Patel’s report was marked as a lettered exhibit to identify it and so that the record is clear regarding the decision I made to proceed with the sentencing hearing without further inquiry into a possible NCR hearing for which I found no sufficient foundation exists.

Circumstances of the offence

[8] The offences arose from a bank robbery at a branch of Toronto-Dominion Bank in Scarborough at about 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2018. My reasons for judgment contain further details of the offences that I shall only summarize here.

[9] Shortly before 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2018, Mr. Breese and three other men arrived by car outside a branch of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. They surveyed the site briefly from the car. The car then proceeded to the property next door, coming to a stop in the driveway of a self-storage facility separated by a small grass median from the front entrance of the bank. Mr. Breese and two other men emerged from the car. The driver stayed behind. All three were wearing gloves and hoodies that left their faces almost entirely covered. Mr. Breese also wore glasses and a bandana pulled up over his nose and mouth.

[10] Mr. Breese entered the banking hall area brandishing a handgun held in his right hand. He took a few steps towards the counter and fired the gun toward the tile floor, aiming a pace or two ahead. There were eight customers in line or at the counter and four staff people in the small banking hall area. After the shot was fired, everyone got down on the floor as Mr. Breese commanded. Mr. Breese then said, “don’t make me use this gun again” or words to similar effect.

[11] Meanwhile, the two men with Mr. Breese went up to the teller counter and demanded cash while Mr. Breese went back to watch the door. The manager gave them a “decoy pack” of marked bills and the gave them some more cash from the dispensing machine at the speed – deliberately slow – that it dispensed it. After grabbing what they could, the three men swiftly exited the branch, got back in the car and drove away. The robbery lasted just over one minute and netted the perpetrators only a few hundred dollars.

Circumstances of the offender

[12] Mr. Breese is 24 years of age. He is single without children. His history until this point in his relatively young life has been complicated.

[13] Mr. Breese provided only limited co-operation in the preparation of the pre-sentence report. He spun a tale of his childhood for the author’s benefit, alleging that he was an orphan among other things. The story he told was quite entirely untrue and it is unclear whether he expected it to be believed. The author of the PSR was able to interview both of his parents, his family doctor and others and from this a portrait of his very troubling childhood and adolescence emerges. His detention records – subject to all of the untested frailties inherent in such evidence – provides still further details that may be referenced with appropriate caution.

[14] Prior to his detention in 2018, Mr. Breese lived with his mother in an apartment in Barrie. He does not appear to have held any long-term employment since completing high school. He did, however, take a number of courses designed to develop work skills. Despite significant diagnosed learning disabilities and a rather profoundly dysfunctional family life, he managed to complete high school, improving his academic results quite markedly in his last two years by dint of hard work. This accomplishment stands to his considerable credit.

[15] Mr. Breese has had a challenged childhood. His parents divorced when he was young. His father abused alcohol and is alleged to have abused his wife and children to some degree as well, something the father denies. He had a half-brother, six years his senior, who committed suicide at the age of 19. This tragedy profoundly impacted Mr. Breese as he was just beginning to enter adolescence. His father broke off relations with him in or around this same time. He has had only an occasional relationship with his father since, although his father did reach out to him when he was detained on these charges and there appear to be some improvements on that front.

[16] The apartment building he lived in was, unfortunately, a less-than-ideal environment for Mr. Breese in his teen years as he was exposed to criminal influences and on one occasion was a victim of a violent incident involving a gun that had a traumatic impact upon him.

[17] Mr. Breese has been coping with numerous significant health issues, some for many years. He experienced a partially collapsed lung that appears to continue to have repercussions. He has been diagnosed with Coats disease in both eyes. He has already lost sight in one of them and there is a likelihood – perhaps an inevitability – that he will eventually lose sight in the other. His eye condition requires frequent treatment by a specialist and is frequently quite painful.

[18] Mr. Breese’s mental health has deteriorated before my eyes over the past few months and there is ample evidence in the record of the problems that have been accumulating on this front. Several months before the robbery incident, Mr. Breese voluntarily sought psychiatric treatment. That action shows me that he had some insight into his mental health condition at least at that time.

[19] Since his arrest in September 2018, there have been numerous signs of deterioration in his mental health beyond my own observations. His mother was an active presence in assisting him in the early stages of his pre-trial detention. By the time of his conviction, he was beginning to deny that she was his mother. While she has been present each and every day Mr. Breese has been before me, he has not acknowledged her or spoken to her as far as I have been able to observe. Detention records indicate decreasing attention to grooming, something that was observable over the course of Mr. Breese’s appearances before me. His voice, mannerisms and comments in court suggest to me an increasing level of paranoia and distress. I am of course in no position to diagnose the precise nature of Mr. Breese’s mental health issues nor to prescribe a course of treatment or comment upon its likelihood of success. I can say from what I have observed, what I have read in the PSR and what confirmation of those observations and comments I have found in the detention records that this young man has mental health issues requiring proper diagnosis and treatment and that these same concerns have played at least some role in the transformation of Mr. Breese into the person who committed the crimes that I convicted him of. None of these observations are intended to suggest that Mr. Breese bears no responsibility for his actions – he does. They are intended only to recognize that the mental health issues faced by Mr. Breese are one relevant factor among several that I can and ought to take into account in fashioning a fit and proper sentence.

[20] Mr. Breese is clearly a troubled young man. His childhood and youth years were challenging, and he has yet to find a way to overcome some of the obstacles that his personal history has put in the way of his future. His deteriorating physical and mental health have created further obstacles.

[21] There are positives, and more than a few. I do not wish to understate the grit and determination that Mr. Breese managed to find to finish high school and as successfully as he did. Since completing high school, he has shown the drive needed to seek out work skills training and to apply himself to that. Whatever negative impacts his family history has played until now, there are clear signs that the family has now mobilized to support him and contribute whatever it takes to help. His mother and grandfather have attended his trial every day and have prepared a place to receive him whenever he is released from custody. His father too has re-entered the picture. All of these developments provide strong raw materials from which a rehabilitation plan might be fashioned.

[22] On the negative side, Mr. Breese has shown no signs of having any insight into the responsibility he bears for his own actions. He continues to maintain his innocence of the charges before me for sentencing. Of course, I do not remotely hold that against him for sentencing purposes. However, he also continues to maintain his innocence of a prior set of charges involving a firearm for which he was convicted after a guilty plea in August 2019. Whether his proclamation of innocence of those charges is a consequence of his growing mental health instability or something else, its persistence does not assist in helping me gain confidence in his potential for rehabilitation absent some persistent action in getting at and treating those mental health issues.

Mandatory minimum sentences prescribed

[23] The offence of reckless discharge of a firearm contrary to s. 244.2(1) carries a minimum sentence of five years in the case of a first offence and a maximum sentence of fourteen years. Mr. Breese has no applicable prior conviction. The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of this minimum sentence in the case of R. v. McIntyre, 2019 ONCA 161. I conclude that Mr. Breese’s conviction of this offence subjects him to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

[24] The offence of armed robbery contrary to s. 344(1)(a) carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for a first offence with a maximum sentence up to life imprisonment.

[25] This armed robbery involved a threat of violence against the persons found in the bank which is a predicate offence under s. 109(1)(a) while the conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm fulfills the predicate of s. 109(1)(b). Mr. Breese was convicted for possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm on August 28, 2019. Although the underlying incident of this first conviction post-dates the incident that has brought Mr. Breese before me, it is the number and not the order of convictions that matters and s. 109(3) applies to require a lifetime firearms prohibition order.

Position of the parties

(a) Position of the Crown

[26] The Crown proposed a sentence of seven years in addition to a mandatory lifetime s. 109 prohibition and a DNA order.

[27] In the Crown’s submission, the severity of these crimes and the aggravating circumstances present requires a sentence significantly beyond the statutory minimum floor sentence. The minimum sentence ought to be reserved for the least serious end of the severity spectrum where a minimum sentence is prescribed bearing in mind that all crimes within that spectrum are blameworthy and severe to begin with. The Crown submitted that Mr. Breese’s youth and his lack of a prior criminal record are fully recognized in the seven year sentence recommended and I was urged to note that the recommended sentence is also near the lower end of the spectrum the Court of Appeal has endorsed for serious gun crimes by reason of the weight already granted by the Crown’s proposal to the mitigating circumstances present.

(b) Position of the Defence

[28] Mr. Breese made few submissions in his own behalf on sentencing. He continued to assert his innocence, he endorsed the position taken by Amicus generally but took the view that all of his time in custody until now ought to count towards his sentence in part because he expects to win his appeal of the earlier conviction and sentence. As shall be seen, Mr. Breese is currently serving the remainder of a sentence for another crime.

(c) Position of the Amicus

[29] Ms. DiGiuseppe is to be thanked for her tireless efforts to assist me. She assisted during the trial – with my permission and that of Mr. Breese – by cross-examining witnesses. She assisted by presenting a very powerful closing argument of factors to consider in order to appreciate fully the potential weaknesses in the Crown’s case and probing deeply into areas where reasonable doubt might be found. Finally, she assisted with a detailed examination of Mr. Breese’s circumstances in sentencing.

[30] Much of Ms. DiGiuseppe’s comments have been reflected in my discussion of the circumstances of the offender. I share with her the fear that Mr. Breese may well deteriorate further during his time in custody although I have guarded optimism that my comments in these reasons will go part of the way to mitigating that risk. While recognizing the lack of manoeuvering room around the minimum sentences applicable in this case, Ms. DiGiuseppe suggested that the severe health issues facing Mr. Breese including the likelihood that he may emerge blind from detention no matter what sentence I impose, the relative harshness of detention upon Mr. Breese in all the circumstances, the strong prosocial family network that has come together to help him, the limited utility of sentence in deterring an offender with mental health issues as serious as those present here, Mr. Breese’s consideration shown to the victims by contesting none of the circumstances of the crime but only his identification as one of the perpetrators of it should all be given sufficient weight to keep Mr. Breese’s sentence to the minimum prescribed by law which is five years. She agreed with the Crown’s submissions regarding ancillary orders.

[31] As shall be seen, I find myself in very significant agreement with her submissions even if I have found that the gravity of these crimes requires some recognition beyond the statutory minimum sentence.

Victim Impact Statements

[32] The Crown filed victim impact statements from two bank staff people who were present during the robbery. Ms. Yuen was working at the teller station nearest Mr. Breese when he showed and then fired the gun. The gun was pointed at the tile floor a few feet in front of her and to her right. Her statement describes how the incident constantly replayed in her head for a lengthy period of time and caused her to lose sleep. She found the experience very difficult emotionally and had anxiety coming to work or watching each customer coming into the branch.

[33] Mr. Deol worked a teller station just a few stations away from Ms. Yuen and similarly described how the experience left him emotionally shaken and checking out clients as they enter the bank.

[34] There can be no doubt of the very significant and lasting trauma that being threatened with a gun, particularly one that has just been fired, inflicts upon those who are victims of it. That impact is of course a significant factor underpinning Parliament’s decision to prescribe the minimum and maximum sentences it has prescribed but cannot be lost sight of in the sentencing process. A fit and proper sentence must reflect the degree of denunciation society rightly expects to be reflected in every sentence rendered and receiving and reviewing victim impact statements is an important means of underscoring and validating that.

Aggravating circumstances

[35] I find that the following aggravating circumstances surrounding these offences must be considered in arriving at a fit and proper sentence, in each case the facts having been determined from the evidence at trial beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. Mr. Breese brought a firearm with him and used it in the commission of the robbery. b. The robbery itself involved premeditation and planning. c. Mr. Breese discharged the firearm in a confined space and in the presence of twelve innocent bystanders standing only a few feet away with the purpose of terrorizing them. d. Mr. Breese threatened those bystanders with the gun he had just fired to compel their compliance with his instructions and to facilitate the robbery.

[36] Mr. Breese was convicted in 2019 of pointing a firearm and possession of a loaded firearm. While the conviction was prior to his conviction before me, the incident itself followed the robbery that is before me (I understand that it was a week or two later). The prior conviction for a subsequent action is thus not an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

Mitigating Circumstances

[37] The following mitigating circumstances must be considered by me in arriving at a fit and proper sentence:

a. Mr. Breese’s prospects for rehabilitation: While Mr. Breese is far from having shown insight into what has led him to where is today (facing a lengthy jail term), the PSR has disclosed what are at least the raw materials for his potential rehabilitation, including the efforts he made to overcome his learning disability and complete high school on something of a high note and thereafter to seek improvement and work skill training. His family too has come together and shown a willingness to do what it takes to assist him. b. Mr. Breese’s age: Mr. Breese turned 24 years recently. He was 21 years of age at the time of the incident leading to the convictions before me for sentencing. He does have a criminal record, but this relates to an incident that occurred shortly after this one. He is entitled to a strong measure of the solicitude that our courts reserve for young offenders. He is not beyond the reach of a second chance.

[38] There are two further circumstances that appear quite relevant to me and serve to mitigate the sentence that might otherwise be imposed even if they may not be “mitigating circumstances” per se.

[39] First is the matter of his health. I have described Mr. Breese’s health challenges – both physical and mental. These have resulted in Mr. Breese having a difficult time in detention thus far and will foreseeably impact the severity of Mr. Breese’s future detention upon him.

[40] Mr. Breese’s mental health issues have contributed to making aspects of his detention harder on him. He has been involved in altercations – whatever his role in them, he appears to have gotten the worst of some of them at least. He has spent a lot of time in segregation. His medical needs have not been ignored but clearly his eye care and treatment of the pain and discomfort resulting from his condition has been choppy. It is foreseeable that detention will continue to be quite hard on Mr. Breese at least until a corner can be turned on the mental health issues facing him. Further, to the degree that his situation leaves him somewhat more open to assault than many other detainees, Mr. Breese’s eye condition is sufficiently fragile that he runs the added risk of being thrust prematurely into a lifetime of blindness whether as a result of a future assault, due to the level of care he receives falling below what is needed or due simply to the passage of time and the progression of his condition.

[41] Mr. Breese’s lung condition is an added level of worry due to the pervasive risk of COVID-19. To their credit, our provincial detention facilities have been effective – not perfect but effective – in minimizing this risk for inmates in their care. Nevertheless, Mr. Breese bears a somewhat elevated level of risk due to this pre-existing condition and the risks that come attached to living in a congregate facility.

[42] Second is the matter of pre-sentence custody. Most of Mr. Breese’s time in detention until now – indeed all of it – has been credited to his August 2019 conviction. But for the fact that he has been convicted and is awaiting sentence on the charges before me, he would very likely have been released when he reached his statutory release date on that earlier conviction two or three months ago. While I am satisfied that this state of affairs does not count as “pre-sentence custody” for which a formal credit is required (his full sentence has not yet been served), the fact remains that if Mr. Breese had been sentenced by me in December as he would have been but for the mental health examination that I felt compelled to order at that time, his sentence would have begun on December 19, 2020. That is a factor which logic and common sense compel me to take into account when I fix his final sentence here.

Application of sentencing principles

[43] The case before me must be placed in the category of serious gun crime for sentencing purposes. Mr. Breese brought a loaded handgun into the relatively confined space of a banking hall of a bank branch and fired the gun only a few feet away from a dozen innocent bystanders and threatened them all to use it on them if they did not do what they were told. The gun and its ammunition did not materialize out of thin air. He necessarily took steps to procure it and have it with him when committing the robbery. I accept the evidence that the planning for the robbery generally took place over the course of several days when the group that participated in it was assembled and agreed to join in. The evidence also bears out the planning that took place the day of the crime where a first target was rejected and the TD Bank branch that was robbed was first examined from the car before the decision was made to park next door and rob it. The reckless risk taken with the lives of innocent bystanders by Mr. Breese is obvious as is the likelihood of traumatic after-effects of the sort demonstrated by the two victim impact statements presented after Mr. Breese terrorized the innocent bystanders present.

[44] There can be no question that general deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing principles that must be applied to serious gun crimes such as this one: R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49 at p. 5.

[45] I shall not repeat or reference the numerous times courts in this jurisdiction have noted the serious impact that gun crimes are having in our community, a consideration that also must be brought to bear: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089 at para. 103. Crimes where general deterrence and denunciation are paramount sentencing considerations generally call for exemplary sentences.

[46] In Bellissimo, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the range for serious gun crimes of this nature is between seven and eleven years. Bellissimo was a case where the accused fired several rounds in a crowded restaurant, injuring one person severely, inflicting a minor injury on a second person and narrowly missing a third and an effective sentence of ten years less credits was imposed. While no physical injuries occurred in this instance, a similar range of sentence is commonly handed down in robberies involving the use of firearms: see R. v. Asif, 2020 ONSC 1403 and cases cited therein (at paras. 42-45).

[47] I note as well that the mandatory minimum sentence of five years that applies to two of the three offences for which Mr. Breese has been convicted is not to be viewed as a ceiling for sentencing purposes but a floor, an observation quite in line with the range of sentences that is derived from the guidance of the Court of Appeal in these matters in the cases I have cited.

[48] This is not Mr. Breese’s first conviction for a firearms-related offence even if it is the most serious. He was convicted in 2019 of possession of a loaded firearm and pointing a firearm for which he received an effective sentence of 2 years and seven months (less pre-sentence custody). As noted, that conviction pre-dates this one although the incident giving rise to it followed this incident by a short period of time (a couple of weeks).

[49] The proportionality principle also suggests a sentence nearer the more serious end of the spectrum than the statutory minimum of five years applicable to two of the offences for which Mr. Breese has been convicted. There is no question that Mr. Breese played a leading role in this robbery. It was he who carried the firearm and discharged it; it was he who ordered the bystanders to get down on the floor and threatened to use his firearm again. Mr. Hunter’s evidence – that I accepted – was that Mr. Breese played a significant role in what planning there was for this affair. His degree of responsibility for the offence and the gravity of it call for an exemplary sentence as well.

[50] Ms. DiGiuseppe points out to me – and I concur in the logic of her submission – that deterrence as a sentencing factor must be examined in the circumstances as they exist. Where, as here, deteriorating mental health played a role at the time of the offence – I refer here to the evidence of Mr. Breese seeking treatment earlier in 2018 – and has played a more significant role since, the ability of any sentence to serve as a specific deterrent to the individual in the face of those other issues is questionable.

[51] While general deterrence and denunciation are clearly the paramount sentencing principles applicable, they are by no means the only ones applicable. Rehabilitation is also an important principle to be kept in view, particularly in view of his relative youth.

[52] It is difficult to express any views as to the rehabilitation potential of Mr. Breese. His behaviour before me in court was erratic at times but he generally showed a good measure of self-control, was alert and took his responsibilities in representing himself seriously. The PSR has, as I mentioned, highlighted qualities of drive and perseverance that can be harnessed to help put him on a new path. However, it would be foolhardy of me to conclude that he presents with excellent prospects of rehabilitation. He has the raw materials in my view, but he has not yet decided to apply himself to changing his ways.

[53] There are a lot of issues that he has yet to come to terms with that are holding him back. The elephant in the room is his mental health. Mr. Breese’s mental health has been deteriorating while in custody. Assessing his rehabilitation potential will necessarily be a shot in the dark to some degree given the two unknowns of his willingness to accept treatment and the efficacy of such treatment. Those risks are mitigated by the knowledge that his mental health issues figure prominently in his detention records, that any sentence he receives will result in federal penitentiary time and that on intake into the federal system, he will be assessed. Whether this will result in a useful diagnosis and course of treatment I cannot say. I can express confidence – and these reasons will follow Mr. Breese to assist – that his condition will not be overlooked.

[54] The other positive factor that applies is the pro-social influence of a family network that is now alerted, engaged and willing to do whatever can be done to help. This last factor is an asset more valuable than almost any other in his case.

[55] In all the circumstances, I find that a sentence of five years and nine-months is appropriate for both the armed robbery charge and the reckless discharge of a firearm charge, the latter to be served concurrently with the former. The conviction for possession of a loaded firearm will carry a sentence of three years also to be served concurrently.

[56] Like all sentences, this sentence reflects a balancing. I accept the Crown’s submissions that Mr. Breese’s offences are by no means near the lower end of the seriousness spectrum for the serious crimes for which he has been convicted and absent the numerous factors particular to the situation of Mr. Breese, I should be swift in endorsing the seven year sentence requested. The prosocial influence of Mr. Breese’s family, the impact of the delay in sentencing upon his overall time in detention, the mental and physical health challenges facing Mr. Breese while in detention and the generally difficult time he has had and likely will have in future while in detention have all persuaded me to lessen the weight I might otherwise have attributed to the aggravating factors present here.

[57] As mentioned earlier, a lifetime s. 109 prohibition order is required in these circumstances. Were Mr. Breese to be considered a first-time offender under s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code, I would nevertheless exercise my discretion to impose a lifetime prohibition order given the circumstances of these offences. A DNA order is also mandatory in these circumstances and shall be made.

Disposition

[58] Accordingly, I sentence Mr. Breese as follows:

a. Count one (armed robbery): five years and nine months; b. Count two (possession loaded firearm): three years concurrent to count one; c. Count three (reckless discharge): five years and nine months concurrent to count one.

[59] Mr. Breese is not entitled to pre-sentence custody credit. However, I have taken account of the impact that the delays in sentencing have had upon the overall time he will spend in custody and as far as reasonably practicable have tried to sentence him as if he had started serving this sentence on December 19, 2020 instead of today. That I do in the exercise of my overall sentencing discretion as a matter of common sense and justice, but not as formal pre-sentence custody credit which I have been persuaded is not applicable here.

[60] The following ancillary orders are also made:

a. S. 109(3): lifetime prohibition order; and b. mandatory DNA order.

[61] Mr. Breese, you have gotten yourself into an awful lot of trouble in a comparatively brief period of time. You are still a young man and it is to be hoped that you will find a way to put this chapter of your life behind you. I have meted out the sentence that your conduct warrants, but I have not overlooked the prospects for your rehabilitation. You will have the opportunity to reflect upon what has brought you to this place while in custody but you will also have the opportunity to develop and work on a constructive release plan that will maximize your chances of being considered for early release at the earliest possible time.

[62] I am convinced that you will greatly benefit from seeking out and following some appropriate mental health treatment. I know that you have recognized some of these issues on your own and you may not readily accept advice from the judge who convicted you of a crime you deny having participated in. Accept at least this – my observations are honest ones and offered with a view to helping you.

[63] I know that life has put a lot of challenges in your way. Your health difficulties are daunting, I do not doubt. The risk to your vision is worrisome. Some things are starting to turn your way though, including a family support network that you are going to be able to lean on when you are ready and able to use it. Society does not expect you to welcome your sentence or cheer for it. We do expect you to accept it and put it behind you even if it is a severe one. Pick yourself up and start work on all of these things as soon are you are able and I sincerely hope that you succeed in putting your life back on track.

S.F. Dunphy J. Released: March 10, 2021