R. v. Ponace (R.C.), (2000) 194 Sask.R. 278 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Henning, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 13, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 194 Sask.R. 278 (ProvCt)

R. v. Ponace (R.C.) (2000), 194 Sask.R. 278 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.051

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan and  Ricky Curtis Ponace

Indexed As: R. v. Ponace (R.C.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Henning, P.C.J.

June 13, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of robbery.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court im­posed a sentence of 45 days' incarceration plus three years of probation.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.3

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Medical - [See Criminal Law -Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Competency of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5855

Sentence - Robbery - The 19 year old accused was convicted of robbery - The victim was a male person known to the accused - The accused had approached the victim on the street and demanded his hat -He had also shown a handgun, which was later found to be a toy gun - No actual violence was used - The accused had a record as a young offender which was nearly continuous since he was aged 12 - The most serious entry was for an armed robbery - The accused had been diagnosed with partial fetal alcohol syndrome and had drug and alcohol addictions - Almost one year spent in pretrial custody - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court sentenced the accused to 45 days' incarceration plus three years of probation - The court stated that supervision and programming would afford the greatest protection to the public - Also, given that the accused had served a sentence equivalent to two years less a day, a long sentence of incarceration could not be justified.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. M.L. (2000), 187 Sask.R. 195 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. T.J., [1999] Y.J. No. 57, refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Alistair Johnston, for the Crown;

Jennifer Calderbank, for the defence.

This matter was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Henning, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who deliv­ered the following decision on June 13, 2000.