R. v. Turrett

R. v. Turrett Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-06-08 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 529 Docket numbers C65048 Judges Lauwers, Peter D.; Pardu, Gladys I.; Miller, Bradley Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Turrett, 2018 ONCA 529 DATE: 20180608 DOCKET: C65048 Lauwers, Pardu and Miller JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Justin Turrett Appellant Gerald Chan, duty counsel Justin Turrett, in person Leslie Paine, for the respondent Heard and released orally: June 5, 2018 On appeal from the sentence imposed on February 2, 2018 by Justice J.E. Allen of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in imposing concurrent 12 month sentences followed by probation for three years on two counts arising from breaches of court orders forbidding contact with the complainant. The appellant argues that the sentencing judge misapprehended the evidence when he noted that threats from the appellant were much more meaningful than threats from someone with no criminal record. [2] We do not, as the appellant argues, read this as a mistaken finding that the forbidden communications here contained threats. [3] Defence submissions indicated that there were no threats contained in the communications and the Crown did not disagree. The sentencing judge’s decision followed immediately. The complainant had been threatened by the appellant in the past and was understandably afraid of him. [4] The appellant also argues that the 12 month sentence was too great a jump from previous sentences. The longest previous sentence was for 78 days. The appellant was undeterred by the earlier sentences imposed for prohibited conduct and threats made to the victim. He had five previous convictions for breaches of court orders. There were three forbidden contacts underlying the present convictions. [5] The appellant said that the complainant was his last hope of anything normal. This suggests that a significant deterrent was required to prevent him from contacting her. The victim impact statement poignantly illustrates the devastating effects upon the complainant of the appellant’s behaviour. [6] As there is no basis to conclude that this sentence was demonstrably unfit or the sentencing judge erred in principle, this appeal must be dismissed. “P. Lauwers J.A.” “G. Pardu J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.”