The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and sought leave to appeal his four-year global sentence.
The conviction appeal was abandoned by the appellant.
On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge ignored mitigating circumstances and rigidly applied sentencing ranges.
The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge was aware of the appellant's background and considered rehabilitative potential.
It also held that while rigid application of ranges is an error, it only warrants intervention if the sentence is disproportionate.
The court found the sentence fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.
