R. v. Poirier
The appeal was dismissed because the sentence was within the acceptable range for the offence and offender; the trial judge lawfully prioritized denunciation and deterrence, properly weighed rehabilitation and the appellant’s prior record and weapons prohibition, correctly treated the sawed-off shotgun as an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 875
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Michael Joseph Poirier
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 December 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence (sentence Appeal)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; original sentence upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Appeal, Credit for Pre Trial/pre Sentence Release Conditions, Denunciation and Deterrence, Weapons Prohibition, Sawed Off Shotgun
- 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
Michael Joseph Poirier
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence (sentence Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge reached conclusions not supported by the Agreed Statement of Facts or evidence
- 2 Whether the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive having regard to all the circumstances
- 3 Whether the trial judge failed to apply appropriate credit for the appellant’s onerous bail/pre-sentence release conditions
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the sentence was within the acceptable range for the offence and offender; the trial judge lawfully prioritized denunciation and deterrence, properly weighed rehabilitation and the appellant’s prior record and weapons prohibition, correctly treated the sawed-off shotgun as an aggravating factor, and reasonably assessed credit for onerous pre-sentence release conditions.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; original sentence upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Original sentence of two years and seven months (net) imposed May 30, 2014 by Justice Kim A. Carpenter-Gunn is affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Poirier Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-12-05 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 875 Docket numbers C59149 Judges Watt, David; van Rensburg, Katherine; Pardu, Gladys I. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Poirier, 2014 ONCA 875 DATE: 20141205 DOCKET: C59149 Watt, van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Michael Joseph Poirier Appellant Alison Craig, for the appellant Melissa Adams, for the respondent Heard and released orally: December 1, 2014 On appeal from the sentence imposed on May 30, 2014 by Justice Kim A. Carpenter-Gunn of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises three grounds of appeal from the net sentence of two years seven months imposed on his plea of guilty to an offence under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Craig submits that the trial judge erred in: i. reaching conclusions not supported by the Agreed Statement of Facts or evidence; ii. imposing a sentence that was unduly harsh and excessive having regard to all the circumstances of the case; and iii. failing to apply the appropriate credit for the appellant’s harsh bail conditions in advance of trial. [2] We do not agree. [3] In our view, the sentence imposed fell within the appropriate range of sentence for this offence and offender. Denunciation and deterrence were the predominant sentencing principles. We are not persuaded that the trial judge ignored the appellant’s rehabilitative prospects. While relatively youthful, the appellant was not a first offender. He had previously served a conditional sentence. He was bound by a weapons prohibition at the time he committed this offence. The gun involved was a sawed-off shotgun, a firearm for which there can be no legitimate purpose. It was stored under a bed, in an apartment, in an apartment building, with ammunition readily available and close at hand. [4] We are not persuaded that the trial judge drew unwarranted inferences from the Agreed Statement of Facts. Her assignment of credit for what are described as onerous pre-sentence release terms was within the range of credit properly attributed to terms such as those by which the appellant was bound. [5] Accordingly, while leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is dismissed. “David Watt J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “G. Pardu J.A.”