R. v. Keresztes (M.), 2015 ABCA 48

• Judge: Berger, Rowbotham and Brown, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 20, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABCA 48;(2015), 593 A.R. 395

R. v. Keresztes (M.) (2015), 593 A.R. 395; 637 W.A.C. 395 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. FE.011

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Mihai Keresztes (appellant)

(1303-0275-A; 2015 ABCA 48)

Indexed As: R. v. Keresztes (M.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Berger, Rowbotham and Brown, JJ.A.

February 3, 2015.

Summary:

The appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault. He appealed his conviction.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [2014] A.R. Uned. 293, dismissed the appeal. The appellant appealed the sentence of nine months' imprisonment imposed on him.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.3

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Medical - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5938 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5938

Sentence - Aggravated assault - A group of individuals left a nightclub at closing time - The complainant mistook the appellant for another male and struck him once in the head from behind - The appellant struck back in self-defence - The complainant fell to the ground - A group of males who were with the appellant began to assault the complainant who was lying on the ground - Two police officers saw the disturbance - When the officers called out, the other males fled, but the appellant remained - The officers saw the appellant deliver a "full force kick football style" to the complainant's head, as they ran toward the disturbance - The complainant suffered a broken jaw as result of the kick to the head - The injuries required surgery, postsurgical treatment and the jaw to be wired shut for several weeks - The complainant had fully recovered - The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault - He had no prior criminal record - He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment - The appellant appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive - The appellant also applied to admit fresh evidence concerning his health, specifically, damage to his heart - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Notwithstanding mistaken references to the law of restraint and the rehabilitative value of incarceration, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence that was not clearly excessive or unreasonable - If the court was to admit the proffered fresh evidence, the result of the appeal would be the same - The appellant's condition was not made clear from the evidence submitted - Nor was there any indication why or how the imposition of the sentence would unduly affect him - The appellant did not suggest that he could not receive adequate medical attention while serving his sentence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.R.D. (2010), 477 A.R. 241; 483 W.A.C. 241; 2010 ABCA 128, refd to. [para. 10].

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. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321; 145 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

T.L. Couillard, for the respondent;

S.J. Fix, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on January 20, 2015, before Berger, Rowbotham and Brown, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal delivered the following memorandum of judgment on February 3, 2015.