R. v. Guerrero

R. v. Guerrero Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-01-10 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 14 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0163 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Coroza, Steve A. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Guerrero, 2025 ONCA 14 DATE: 20250110 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0163 Rouleau, van Rensburg and Coroza JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Rider Guerrero Appellant Rider Guerrero, acting in person Sonya Shikhman, appearing as duty counsel Ira Glasner, for the respondent Heard and released orally: January 7, 2025 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Joseph A. De Filippis of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated October 12, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences including possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, and offences related to stolen property and breaches of court orders. He was self-represented at first instance. The sentencing judge conducted a comprehensive plea inquiry. It was abundantly clear that the appellant wished to plead guilty to the offences, admit his guilt, and knew that he faced a potential penitentiary sentence. The Crown requested a global sentence of nine and a half years for all the offences. The appellant requested a global sentence of six and a half to seven years. The sentencing judge imposed a global nine-year sentence with a Summers credit of 20 months, for a net global sentence of 88 months to be served. [2] The appellant with the assistance of duty counsel appeals his sentence. He raises two grounds of appeal: 1. The sentence was excessive; and 2. On the basis of fresh evidence showing that he was subjected to lockdown conditions or triple bunking for 57 days, the sentence should be reduced as a Duncan credit. [3] Except where a sentence is manifestly unfit, we can only interfere with the sentence if the sentencing judge committed an error of law or principle that has an impact on the sentence. [4] We see no error in the sentencing judge’s reasons. We do not accept the appellant’s first argument that the sentence was excessive in light of the aggravating factors, including the nature and quantity of the drugs, the appellant’s criminal record, and the fact that he was on bail when he committed the second set of offences. [5] We also do not accept the appellant’s second submission. In fairness to the sentencing judge, he had no evidence of the lockdown records that are now before us. However, the Crown does not oppose the fresh evidence being tendered. [6] Having reviewed the records, we would not reduce the sentence. The Duncan credit is discretionary and is treated as a mitigating factor on sentence. In our view, the fresh evidence does not impact the fitness of the sentence, which was on the lower end when significant amounts of fentanyl are involved; see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 463 D.L.R. (4th) 389, at para. 68. [7] For these reasons, leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the sentence appeal is dismissed. “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “S. Coroza J.A.”