R. v. Grujic
The trial judge correctly identified and relied on non‑generic, distinctive features linking the offences and did not conflate similarity analysis with linkage; his factual findings and discretionary sentencing decisions (including refusal to enhance pretrial credit, inference regarding rehabilitation, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 ONCA 146
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Robert Grujic
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed (conviction and sentence upheld)
- Legal Topics
- Similar Fact Evidence, Signature Evidence, Pretrial Custody Credit, Breach of Probation, Consecutive Sentencing, Rehabilitation
- 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
Robert Grujic
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting/using similar fact/signature evidence to convict
- 2 Whether the trial judge misapplied factors and relied on generic similarities
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in calculating pretrial custody credit with respect to earned remission
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge correctly identified and relied on non‑generic, distinctive features linking the offences and did not conflate similarity analysis with linkage; his factual findings and discretionary sentencing decisions (including refusal to enhance pretrial credit, inference regarding rehabilitation, and imposition of consecutive sentence) were reasonable and within his discretion, so both conviction and sentence appeals fail.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed (conviction and sentence upheld)
Orders
- Conviction appeal dismissed
- Sentence appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Grujic Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2012-03-08 Neutral citation 2012 ONCA 146 Docket numbers C50975 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; MacPherson, James C.; Juriansz, Russell G. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Grujic, 2012 ONCA 146 DATE: 20120307 DOCKET: C50975 Goudge, MacPherson and Juriansz JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Robert Grujic Appellant Ariel Herscovitch and Sharon Jeethan, for the appellant Matthew Asma, for the respondent Heard: March 1, 2012 On appeal from the conviction entered on May 15, 2009 and the sentence imposed on July 6, 2009 by Justice Peter H. Howden of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge here undertook a careful analysis of the ways in which the offence he was trying was significantly similar to two other convenience store robberies. In our view he did not rely on factors that are so generic as to fail to point to signature features of the act. Nor did he confuse this task with his second task of determining the appellant’s linkage to each robbery. The conviction appeal is dismissed. [2] The appellant raises three arguments on sentence. First, the appellant submits that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the absence of earned remission time in his presentence credit calculation. We disagree. The trial judge was clearly alive to this factor, but chose not to enhance pretrial credit on account of it. That was open to him. [3] Second, the trial judge is said to have wrongly used the appellant’s breaches of probation to conclude that the appellant was resistant to rehabilitation. In our view this inference was open to him and does not constitute error. [4] The third error alleged is in making consecutive the sentence for breach of probation. In our view the trial judge did receive submissions from defence counsel on this issue and did not err by declining to agree with them. Moreover the consideration of prior breaches of probation is a relevant consideration for this aspect of overall sentence as well as for the aspect relating to the gravity of the robbery. These aspects protect different societal interests. [5] The sentence appeal is dismissed.