R. v. Newton
Sharpe J.A. understood the appellant's grounds (s.11(b)), did not err in describing the appeal as 'barely arguable' for the purposes of the s.684 analysis, and there is no material change in circumstances to justify overturning the order refusing appointment of counsel; accordingly the application is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2020 ONCA 176
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Duane Newton
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Counsel Under S.684 Dismissed; Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Before Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; order of Sharpe J.A. refusing s.684 counsel upheld; matter to be spoken to April 8, 2020.
- Legal Topics
- S.684 Appointment of Counsel, S.11(b) Charter Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Standard of Appellate Review, 'barely Arguable' Threshold
- 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
Duane Newton
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Counsel Under S.684 Dismissed; Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Before Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Sharpe J.A. misunderstood the appellant's ground of appeal (s.11(b) vs s.11(d))
- 2 Whether characterization of the appeal as 'barely arguable' was erroneous
- 3 Whether a s.684 order appointing counsel should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
Sharpe J.A. understood the appellant's grounds (s.11(b)), did not err in describing the appeal as 'barely arguable' for the purposes of the s.684 analysis, and there is no material change in circumstances to justify overturning the order refusing appointment of counsel; accordingly the application is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; order of Sharpe J.A. refusing s.684 counsel upheld; matter to be spoken to April 8, 2020.
Orders
- Dismissed the appellant's review application and upheld Sharpe J.A.'s order refusing a s.684 appointment of counsel
- Matter to be spoken to on April 8, 2020 to address the Crown's proposed response to the appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel ground
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Newton Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2020-03-05 Neutral citation 2020 ONCA 176 Docket numbers C65077 Judges Hoy, Alexandra; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Newton, 2020 ONCA 176 DATE: 20200305 DOCKET: C65077 Hoy A.C.J.O., Feldman and Gillese JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Duane Newton Appellant Delmar Doucette, for the appellant Hannah Freeman, for the respondent Heard: February 12, 2020 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice C. Bondy of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 20, 2017, and the sentence imposed on December 8, 2017. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Mr. Newton asks this panel to review the order of Sharpe J.A., dismissing his application for a s. 684 order to appoint counsel for the appeal. He argues that Sharpe J.A. misunderstood one of his grounds of appeal. We reject that argument. It is clear that Sharpe J.A. understood that Mr. Newton argued s. 11(b) of the Charter, and not s. 11(d). [2] He also argues that Sharpe J.A. erred in characterizing the appeal as “barely arguable”. We are not persuaded that he erred in that characterization, which was made solely for the purpose of determining whether a further s. 684 order should be granted. Mr. Newton points to no material change in circumstances that would otherwise warrant interfering with the order of Sharpe J.A. [3] This matter is accordingly dismissed. This matter shall be spoken to on April 8, 2020 to address the Crown’s proposed response to Mr. Newton’s ineffective assistance of counsel ground of appeal.