R. v. Figiel (D.J.), 2015 ABCA 19

• Judge: Brown, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 08, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABCA 19;(2015), 588 A.R. 372

R. v. Figiel (D.J.) (2015), 588 A.R. 372; 626 W.A.C. 372 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JA.084

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/respondent) v. Dennison James Figiel (applicant/appellant)

(1403-0310-A; 2015 ABCA 19)

Indexed As: R. v. Figiel (D.J.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Brown, J.A.

January 12, 2015.

Summary:

The accused pled guilty to possession of 4.76 ounces of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. The accused appealed from the sentence only and applied for judicial interim release, pending the appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Brown, J.A., dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 3310.1

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Release pending sentence appeal - The accused pled guilty to possession of 4.76 ounces of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking - He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment - The accused appealed from the sentence only, asserting that the sentencing judge had erred by (1) applying the 4.5 year starting point, which the accused asserted applied only to "wholesale" trafficking in cocaine and (2) labelling as aggravating the "nature and quality" of the drugs in issue and the "planning and deliberation" involved, where the starting point already accounted for those factors - The accused applied for judicial interim release, pending the appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Brown, J.A., dismissed the application - The first ground of appeal lacked arguable merit - The second ground of appeal, regarding the double counting of aggravating factors, had arguable merit - However, the accused would be relying on that argument to change a 30 month sentence to a conditional sentence order - Such an outcome seemed "highly unlikely", given the circumstances, which attracted a wholesale starting point - The accused's continued detention pending the appeal would not cause unnecessary hardship.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.) (2000), 271 A.R. 118; 234 W.A.C. 118; 2000 ABCA 303, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Maskill (1981), 29 A.R. 107; 58 C.C.C.(2d) 408 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Lau (W.T.) (2004), 357 A.R. 312; 334 W.A.C. 312; 2004 ABCA 408, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Ruth (K.L.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 9; 2007 ABCA 34, refd to. [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Trotter, Gary T., The Law of Bail in Canada (3rd Ed. 2010), p. 10-37 [para. 10].

Counsel:

J.D. Martin, for the respondent;

D.J. Song and A.M. Mitic, student-at-law, for the applicant.

This application was heard on January 8, 2015, by Brown, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who filed the following reasons for decision on January 12, 2015.