R. v. Carrillo (O.O.), 2015 BCCA 192

• Judge: Bennett, MacKenzie and Harris, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 192;(2015), 371 B.C.A.C. 182 (CA)

R. v. Carrillo (O.O.) (2015), 371 B.C.A.C. 182 (CA);

    636 W.A.C. 182

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.020

Regina (appellant) v. Oscar Orlando Carrillo (respondent)

(CA042458; 2015 BCCA 192)

Indexed As: R. v. Carrillo (O.O.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bennett, MacKenzie and Harris, JJ.A.

April 29, 2015.

Summary:

The 50 year old accused, a mid-level trafficker, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He was found in possession of three ounces of cocaine, drug paraphernalia and items consistent with the packaging and sale of cocaine. The accused was a refugee from Columbia. As a result of his persecution there, the accused suffered from PTSD and agoraphobia. He was injured in a 2011 motor vehicle and in 2014 he was diagnosed with Bell's Palsy which resulted in partial paralysis of one side of his face. The Crown sought 18-24 months' imprisonment. The accused sought a suspended sentence and probation based on his exceptional circumstances, including a lack of a criminal record and his significant physical, mental and personal difficulties.

The British Columbia Provincial Court, based on the accused's exceptional circumstances, sentenced him to a two year suspended sentence plus probation, which included a substantial deprivation of liberty in the form of a curfew. The Crown appealed, arguing that (1) the sentencing judge materially misapprehended the facts, resulting in him inadequately considering the seriousness of the offence and (2) the sentence imposed was demonstrably unfit.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. There was no material misapprehension of the facts. The sentencing judge did not err in finding that exceptional circumstances justified a sentence outside the normal range of sentences for mid-level traffickers. Given the exceptional circumstances, the sentence imposed was not unfit and, further, now incarcerating the accused would interfere with the accused's positive steps at rehabilitation.

Criminal Law - Topic 5704

Punishments (sentence) - Suspended sentence - Circumstances when appropriate - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.8

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drug and narcotic offences - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5832

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Rehabilitation - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5837

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Mitigating circumstances - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. starting point principle) - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.3

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Medical - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance (incl. possession for the purpose of trafficking) - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 6204

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Grounds for refusing to vary sentence - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. L.M. (2008), 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Allen (W.R.) (2012), 327 B.C.A.C. 236; 556 W.A.C. 236; 2012 BCCA 377, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Francis (C.A.) (2008), 258 B.C.A.C. 80; 434 W.A.C. 80; 2008 BCCA 309, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Walkley (J.R.) (2009), 269 B.C.A.C. 9; 453 W.A.C. 9; 2009 BCCA 87, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Biery (R.M.) et al. (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 277; 283 W.A.C. 277; 2002 BCCA 552, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 144; 300 W.A.C. 144; 2003 BCCA 291, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Allen (G.M.) et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1024; 2014 BCSC 1024, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Davidson (J.D.), [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 269; 2014 BCSC 269, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Smith (T.D.) (2013), 337 B.C.A.C. 27; 576 W.A.C. 27; 2013 BCCA 173, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Scott (C.D.) (2015), 599 A.R. 182; 643 W.A.C. 182;  2015 ABCA 99, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Amhaz (H.A.) (2013), 341 B.C.A.C. 139; 582 W.A.C. 139; 2013 BCCA 348, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lindley (F.) (2006), 229 B.C.A.C. 307; 379 W.A.C. 307; 2006 BCCA 380, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Kozma (P.S.) (2000), 142 B.C.A.C. 195; 233 W.A.C. 195; 2000 BCCA 440, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Datt (R.) (2014), 364 B.C.A.C. 159; 625 W.A.C. 159; 2014 BCCA 484, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.) (2000), 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Samson (T.K.) (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 149; 633 W.A.C. 149; 2015 YKCA 7, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Nesbitt (N.L.) (2012), 322 B.C.A.C. 249; 549 W.A.C. 249; 2012 BCCA 243, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Tucker (M.E.D.) (2011), 312 B.C.A.C. 89; 531 W.A.C. 89; 2011 BCCA 429, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. D.E.S.M. (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 305; 40 W.A.C. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

P. Riley, Q.C., for the appellant;

R.T. Gill, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 29, 2015, at Vancouver, B.C., before Bennett, MacKenzie and Harris, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On April 29, 2015, the judgment of the Court was delivered orally, including the following opinions:

MacKenzie, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 41;

Bennett, J.A. - see paragraphs 42, 44;

Harris, J.A. - see paragraph 43.