R. v. Morin (L.), (2005) 272 Sask.R. 116 (PC)

• Judge: Kolenick, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2005), 272 Sask.R. 116 (PC);2005 SKPC 102

R. v. Morin (L.) (2005), 272 Sask.R. 116 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.008

Her Majesty the Queen v. Morin (L.)

(Information No. 44653341; 2005 SKPC 102)

Indexed As: R. v. Morin (L.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kolenick, P.C.J.

December 1, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of robbery. The Crown sought an order that the accused was a long-term offender.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court declared the accused to be a long-term offender. The court sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment, less four years' double credit for two years' remand. The court also ordered that the accused be subject to a long-term offender supervision order for six years.

Criminal Law - Topic 5855

Sentence - Robbery - The accused was convicted of robbery - He and an accomplice attended at the complainant's residence while intoxicated and gained entry by asking to use the telephone - The complainant's spouse went to the neighbour's house and telephoned 911 - The accused stabbed the complainant twice in the back with a steak knife - The complainant was also struck twice in the head with a ceramic bowl - Both injuries required stitches - The purpose of the home invasion was drugs or money - The accused had a 27 year history of adult offending - Some of his 63 offences were violent - He had a history of substance abuse - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court declared the accused to be a long-term offender, sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment (less four years' double credit for two years' remand), and ordered that he be subject to a six year supervision order.

Criminal Law - Topic 6503.1

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Long-term offender - Defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Otto (M.E.), [2004] Sask.R. Uned. 244 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. R.H.L., [2005] S.J. No. 70 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Otto (M.E.), [2005] S.J. No. 275 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 33].

R. v. Kahnapace (N.T.) (2001), 207 Sask.R. 247; 247 W.A.C. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Matwiy (S.B.) and Langston (J.D.) (1996), 178 A.R. 356; 110 W.A.C. 356; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Ross (P.S.) (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 75; 202 W.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Fraser (S.A.) (1997), 158 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 466 A.P.R. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Blackier (W.B.) (2003), 242 Sask.R. 312 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Lemaigre (G.L.) (2004), 254 Sask.R. 255; 336 W.A.C. 255; 189 C.C.C.(3d) 492 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Goforth (E.R.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 123; 342 W.A.C. 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Daniels (D.A.) (2001), 203 Sask.R. 101; 240 W.A.C. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. K.R.S. (2004), 254 Sask.R. 221; 336 W.A.C. 221; 2004 SKCA 127, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Desjarlais (K.D.), [1998] Sask.R. Uned. 228; 1998 CarswellSask 681 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sangwais (L.D.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 291; 216 W.A.C. 291; 2000 SKCA 49, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Durocher (R.D.) (2002), 217 Sask.R. 88; 265 W.A.C. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McNab (R.F.) (1991), 97 Sask.R. 169; 12 W.A.C. 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Counsel:

Paul Goldstein, for the Crown;

Barry Morgan, Q.C., for the accused.

This case was heard by Kolenick, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on December 1, 2005.