R. v. Kloss
There was no joint submission or equivalent because defence denied it, there was no prior discussion or reliance by the accused, and the trial judge provided adequate reasons; the four year sentence was within range and fit given the appellant's serious record, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 197
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: David Kloss
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Appeal, Joint Submission, Plea, Trial Judge Reasons
- 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
David Kloss
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by treating the Crown's position as a joint submission
- 2 Whether the imposed four year sentence was fit and within the appropriate range
Ratio Decidendi
There was no joint submission or equivalent because defence denied it, there was no prior discussion or reliance by the accused, and the trial judge provided adequate reasons; the four year sentence was within range and fit given the appellant's serious record, so the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal sentence granted
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Kloss Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-03-19 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 197 Docket numbers C43964 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Watt, David Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Kloss, 2008 ONCA 197 DATE: 20080319 DOCKET: C43964 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO SHARPE, ARMSTRONG and WATT JJ.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent and DAVID KLOSS Appellant Christopher R. Murphy for the appellant Joanne K. Stuart for the respondent Heard: March 14, 2008 On appeal from the judgment of Justice A.R. Webster of the Ontario Court of Justice dated March 14, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant submits that the trial judge erred by ignoring what was or what amounted to a joint submission. We do not agree that this was a joint submission or the equivalent. When defence counsel was asked at the outset, he stated that it was not a joint submission. It bore none of the hallmarks of a joint submission: there was no prior consideration or discussion and no reliance by the accused when entering his plea. At best, the Crown did not put forward a different position as to the length of sentence. The trial judge provided short but adequate reasons for imposing a four year sentence. The sentence was within the range and, given the appellant’s serious record for similar offences, it was fit. [2] Leave to appeal sentence granted, but the appeal is dismissed.