R. v. Levagood (G.F.), (2006) 410 A.R. 211 (PC)

• Judge: Semenuk, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 410 A.R. 211 (PC);2006 ABPC 214

R. v. Levagood (G.F.) (2006), 410 A.R. 211 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. DE.114

Her Majesty the Queen v. Gina Faye Levagood (050435650P1; 051376200P1; 2006 ABPC 214)

Indexed As: R. v. Levagood (G.F.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Semenuk, P.C.J.

September 5, 2006.

Summary:

The accused pled guilty to 14 offences, including attempted robbery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, two counts of obstructing a police officer, five counts of failing to appear in court and five charges of breach of a recognizance.

The Alberta Provincial Court sentenced the accused on all offences, but for the attempted robbery, considering the time spent in pre-trial custody (12 months), to one day's imprisonment, to be served concurrently. On the attempted robbery charge, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 12 months less one day. The court also imposed a 10 year firearm prohibition and ordered the accused to provide a DNA sample.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - Blended sentences - The accused pled guilty to 14 offences, including attempted robbery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, two counts of obstructing a police officer, five counts of failing to appear in court and five charges of breach of a recognizance - The accused asserted that having regard to the 12 months she spent in custody, but for the attempted robbery charge, she ought to be sentenced to one day's imprisonment concurrent, for all other offences - On the attempted robbery charge, she asserted that the court ought to make a conditional sentence order of two years less one day, followed by a year's probation - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the assertions - The accused's proposed sentence would constitute an illegal blended sentence - An imprisonment term and a consecutive conditional sentence could only be imposed when different sentences were used for different counts and the total sentence was less than two years - The sentence submission made by the accused would constitute an illegal blended sentence because when the 12 months of pre-trial custody was factored into the sentence, the global sentence would exceed two years less one day - See paragraphs 8 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The 30 year old accused pled guilty to 14 offences, including attempted robbery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, two counts of obstructing a police officer, five counts of failing to appear in court and five charges of breach of a recognizance - The accused went into a Petro Canada and ordered the front clerk to give her the money in the till - She stated that she had a knife and that she would hit the clerk with the knife if he did not comply - The clerk refused and the accused fled the scene - She was later captured and she confessed - While on bail, she committed several breaches of the undertaking, namely, breaking curfew - She also failed to appear in court on several occasions - She was caught in the possession of a stolen vehicle - She also twice obstructed justice by giving a false name and date of birth to officers investigating instances of prostitution - The offences were derivative crimes to the accused's admitted crack cocaine addiction - However, she had no prior criminal record, had community support and had taken steps to be admitted to a drug treatment program on her release from custody - The Alberta Provincial Court sentenced the accused on all offences, but for the attempted robbery, considering the time spent in pre-trial custody (12 months), to one day's imprisonment, to be served concurrently - On the attempted robbery charge, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 12 months less one day - The accused was prepared to address her drug addiction and she ought to be given the opportunity to do so, so that she could reintegrate herself back into the community - See paragraphs 20 to 54.

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.16

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Addicts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5855

Sentence - Robbery - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5862

Sentence - Possession of stolen goods or goods obtained by crime - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5892

Sentence - Breach of restraining order, recognizance or undertaking - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5910

Sentence - Obstructing justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5914

Sentence - Attempt to commit an offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5921

Sentence - Being at large or failing to appear - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Goeujon (P.K.G.) (2006), 227 B.C.A.C. 129; 374 W.A.C. 129; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Alfred (A.) (1998), 105 O.A.C. 373; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Monkman (L.M.), [1998] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 135; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 89; 21 C.R.(5th) 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. M.L.M. - see R. v. Monkman (L.M.).

R. v. Hill (1999), 140 C.C.C.(3d) 214 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. R.A.R. (2000), 249 N.R. 322; 142 Man.R.(2d) 282; 212 W.A.C. 282; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 523 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Wey (R.M.), [1999] 12 W.W.R. 516; 244 A.R. 189; 209 W.A.C. 189; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 2000 CarswellAlta 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Fisher (G.J.) (2000), 129 O.A.C. 92; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 413 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R .v. Ploumis (F.) (2000), 140 O.A.C. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Hindes (S.C.) (2000), 261 A.R. 108; 225 W.A.C. 108; 2000 ABCA 197, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Nadolnick (M.P.) (2003), 339 A.R. 348; 312 W.A.C. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Joe (P.) (2005), 217 B.C.A.C. 270; 358 W.A.C. 270; 204 C.C.C.(3d) 478 (Yuk. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Vanderheyden (R.J.) (2006), 400 A.R. 155; 2006 ABPC 121, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McLean (L.J.) (2004), 357 A.R. 321; 334 W.A.C. 321; 2004 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Renaud, Gilles, Blended Sentences: You Can Mix a Conditional Sentence with a Jail Term After All, ADGN/106, para. 23 [para. 13].

Counsel:

L. Robertson, for the Crown;

M. Stephenson, for the Defence.

This case was heard by Semenuk, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on September 5, 2006.