R. v. Moser
The Court held the sentencing judge did not err: the judge properly found the requisite pattern of behaviour supporting a long-term offender designation and the custodial sentence and eight-year supervision period, though at the high end, were within the permissible range; the appeal was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C38031
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Gregory Alfon Moser
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 October 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal dismissed; long-term offender designation and sentence upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Long Term Offender Designation, Sentencing, Probation Breach, Kidnapping, Assault With a Weapon, Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Supervision Period
- 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
Gregory Alfon Moser
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the long-term offender designation was reasonable
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a custodial sentence of more than two years
- 3 Whether the appellant engaged in the pattern of behaviour required for a long-term offender designation
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the sentencing judge did not err: the judge properly found the requisite pattern of behaviour supporting a long-term offender designation and the custodial sentence and eight-year supervision period, though at the high end, were within the permissible range; the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal dismissed; long-term offender designation and sentence upheld.
Orders
- Sentence appeal dismissed
- Long-term offender designation upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Moser Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-10-04 Docket numbers C38031 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; Simmons, Janet M.; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20061004 DOCKET: C38031 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – GREGORY ALFON MOSER (Appellant) BEFORE: FELDMAN, SIMMONS AND ROULEAU JJ.A. COUNSEL: James Carlisle for the appellant Howard Leibovich for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: September 21, 2006 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Casey Hill of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 7, 2002. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant pleaded guilty to kidnapping, assault with a weapon and failing to comply with the terms of a probation order. Following his pleas of guilty he was sentenced to three years imprisonment in addition to credit of three years and two months for pre-sentence custody. In addition, the appellant was designated as a long-term offender; under the terms of that order he is subject to supervision for a period of eight years. [2] On appeal, the appellant contends that the long-term offender designation is unreasonable and that the sentencing judge erred in determining that it was appropriate to impose a sentence of more than two years imprisonment and erred in holding that the appellant had engaged in the necessary pattern of behaviour to warrant a long-term offender designation. Finally, the appellant contends that the eight-year supervision period was harsh and excessive and should be reduced. [3] We disagree. In our view, the sentencing judge gave careful reasons for finding that the appellant fit the long-term offender criteria. In particular, we find no error in the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s past behaviour constituted the necessary pattern for the finding that the trial judge made. [4] With respect to the sentence imposed, while we consider that the period of imprisonment and the duration of the supervision order was at the high end of what was appropriate in all of the circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the sentencing judge made any error. [5] Accordingly, while leave to appeal sentence is granted, the sentence appeal is dismissed. “K. Feldman J.A.” “Janet Simmons J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.”