R. v. Jones
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err: the sentence was within the low end of the range, reflected appropriate consideration of mitigating factors and one-for-one credit for pre-sentence custody, and defence counsel did not seek enhanced credit, so no appellate interference was warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 695
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Andrew Edward Jones
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 November 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Joint Submission, Aboriginal Heritage, Delay in Proceedings, Medical Condition
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Andrew Edward Jones
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to give enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody
- 2 Whether the amount of pre-sentence custody was part of the joint submission
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err: the sentence was within the low end of the range, reflected appropriate consideration of mitigating factors and one-for-one credit for pre-sentence custody, and defence counsel did not seek enhanced credit, so no appellate interference was warranted.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Sentence appeal dismissed
- Original sentence upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Jones Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-11-09 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 695 Docket numbers C54327 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Cronk, Eleanore Ann; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Jones, 2011 ONCA 695 DATE: 20111108 DOCKET: C54327 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Laskin, Cronk and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Andrew Edward Jones Appellant Tina Yuen, for the appellant Jennifer Mannen, for the respondent Heard: November 4, 2011 On appeal from the sentence imposed on March 23, 2011 by Justice John D. D. Evans of the Ontario Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Mr. Jones appeals on the sole ground that the trial judge erred by failing to give enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody. This submission rest on the proposition that the amount of pre-sentence custody was not part of the joint submission. We do not accept this proposition. [2] This was a serious home invasion for which Mr. Jones received a sentence at the very low end of the range. That sentence reflected his aboriginal heritage, the delay in the proceedings leading to his guilty plea, and his medical condition. Equally, in our view, it reflected one for one credit for “dead time”. [3] Our view finds support in the submissions of counsel on sentencing, especially the submission of defence counsel, who did not ask the trial judge to give enhanced credit. [4] The sentence appeal is dismissed.