R. v. Carlson (P.A.), (2010) 282 B.C.A.C. 306 (CA)

• Judge: K. Smith, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 27, 2010
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2010), 282 B.C.A.C. 306 (CA);2010 BCCA 81

R. v. Carlson (P.A.) (2010), 282 B.C.A.C. 306 (CA);

    476 W.A.C. 306

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.042

Regina (respondent/respondent) v. Paul Carlson (appellant/applicant)

(CA037548; 2010 BCCA 81)

Indexed As: R. v. Carlson (P.A.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

K. Smith, J.A.

February 19, 2010.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of rape in 1993 and declared to be a dangerous offender in 1994. In 2005, his appeal from the dangerous offender designation was dismissed as being "entirely without merit" ([2005] B.C.A.C. Uned. 106; 2005 BCCA 352). Subsequently, the accused applied to quash his warrant of committal on the ground of procedural irregularities in the dangerous offender proceedings. That application was dismissed. He then applied to suspend the warrant of committal based on a discrepancy in dates on documents respecting his dangerous offender application. That application was dismissed as having no possibility of success. In October 2008, the accused applied to quash the warrant of committal on the same ground (discrepancy in dates).

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. F37, dismissed the application on the grounds that it was without merit and, in any event, was res judicata. The accused appealed and applied under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of counsel to assist him on his appeal. He also sought an extension of time to file his notice of appeal, the limitation period for doing so having expired 10 months' earlier.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Smith, J.A., dismissed the applications. Although the accused lacked the financial resources to retain counsel, it was not in the interests of justice to appoint counsel where the accused was capable of adequately representing himself and, in any event, the appeal was devoid of merit. The court denied an extension of time to file the notice of appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 4638

Right to counsel - Appointment of counsel by the court or the state - By appeal court - The accused was convicted of rape in 1993 and declared to be a dangerous offender in 1994 - In 2005, his appeal from the dangerous offender designation was dismissed as being "entirely without merit" - Subsequently, the accused applied to quash his warrant of committal on the ground of procedural irregularities in the dangerous offender proceedings - That application was dismissed - He then applied to suspend the warrant of committal based on a discrepancy in dates on documents respecting his dangerous offender application - That application was dismissed as having no possibility of success - In October 2008, the accused applied to quash the warrant of committal on the same ground (discrepancy in dates) - The trial judge dismissed the application on the grounds that it was without merit and, in any event, was res judicata - The accused appealed and applied under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of counsel to assist him on his appeal - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Smith, J.A., dismissed the application - Although the accused lacked the financial resources to retain counsel, it was not in the interests of justice to appoint counsel where the accused was capable of adequately representing himself and, in any event, the appeal was devoid of merit.

Practice - Topic 9002

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Extension of time for filing and serving notice of appeal - An accused designated a dangerous offender in 1994 had commenced multiple proceedings challenging the designation - In 2008, his application to quash the warrant of committal on the basis of procedural irregularities was dismissed as being without merit and also because it was res judicata - The accused filed a notice of appeal 10 months after the limitation period for doing so expired - He applied for an extension of time to file an appeal - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Smith, J.A., dismissed the application on the ground that the appeal was devoid of merit.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Baig (K.) (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 156 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1991] 1 S.C.R. vi; 129 N.R. 240, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Stonechild (K.L.) (2009), 275 B.C.A.C. 216; 465 W.A.C. 216; 2009 BCCA 389, refd to. [para. 10].

National Shoring Ltd. (Bankrupt) v. Dextras Engineering & Construction Ltd. et al. (2009), 271 B.C.A.C. 157; 458 W.A.C. 157; 2009 BCCA 236, variation denied (2009), 276 B.C.A.C. 268; 468 W.A.C. 268; 2009 BCCA 430, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Currie (1984), 2 O.A.C. 78; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Paul Carlson, applicant, on his own behalf;

E. Burnet, for the Crown, respondent.

These applications were heard on January 27, 2010, at Vancouver, B.C., in Chambers before K. Smith, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on February 19, 2010.