R. v. Valentine
The Court held that the unforeseen statutory consequences of a subsequent drug sentence do not affect the fitness of the life sentence for murder with parole ineligibility set at 12 years, and that the Crown's sequencing of charges is irrelevant to the fitness of that sentence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2013 ONCA 76
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Jeremiah Valentine
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 February 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Parole Ineligibility, Sentencing Consequences, Drug Sentence Sequencing
- 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
Jeremiah Valentine
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether unforeseen statutory consequences of a subsequent drug sentence affect the fitness of a prior murder sentence
- 2 Whether the Crown's sequencing of charges affects the fitness of the murder sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the unforeseen statutory consequences of a subsequent drug sentence do not affect the fitness of the life sentence for murder with parole ineligibility set at 12 years, and that the Crown's sequencing of charges is irrelevant to the fitness of that sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentence upheld: life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at 12 years
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Valentine Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2013-02-06 Neutral citation 2013 ONCA 76 Docket numbers C54989 Judges Doherty, David H.; Simmons, Janet M.; Tulloch, Michael H. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Valentine, 2013 ONCA 76 DATE: 20130205 DOCKET: C54989 Doherty, Simmons and Tulloch JJ.A. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Jeremiah Valentine Appellant Bradley Greenshields, for the appellant Lucy Cecchetto, for the respondent Heard: February 1, 2013 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice McMahon of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 22, 2009. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, the unforeseen statutory consequences of the subsequent drug sentence on the overall period of parole ineligibility have no bearing on the fitness of the sentence imposed on the murder conviction (life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at 12 years). Nor, in our view, does the fact that the Crown may have agreed to proceed with the drug charges first had the Crown been asked to do so have any bearing on the fitness of the sentence imposed on the murder charge. [2] The appeal is dismissed.