Accused appeals conviction for seven-years for breaking and entering of a dwelling (criminal code s 382(1)(b)) and a two-year concurrent sentence for wounding a dog (criminal code s 445(1)(a)).
The facts of the case are not discussed in this decision.
Accused claimed that (a) the trial judge erred in failing to find the police violated s 10(b) of the Charter and (b) that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility by failing to consider all evidence. The MBCA found that the trial judge did not make an error for either of these matters.
The MBCA did however find that the trial judge sentencing two concurrent years for the wounding of the dog was extreme as the crown was only seeking 90-days. They found that under the circumstances and due to level of animal abuse, 90-days was appropriate and set aside the two-year concurrent conviction and set in place 90-days.
Para 16: “To summarize, the conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted. The sentence appeal regarding the break and enter offence is dismissed, while the sentence imposed by the trial judge for the wounding offence is set aside and replaced with a 90-day concurrent sentence.”