R v Hazelgrove

Case [2013] QCA 243

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hazelgrove [2013] QCA 243

PARTIES:

R
v
HAZELGROVE, Cody Steven
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 32 of 2013
DC No 8 of 2013
DC No 9 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of one count of breaking and entering premises and stealing; one count of breaking and entering premises and attempted stealing; one count of wilful damage; one count of possessing dangerous drugs; three counts of stealing; and one count of burglary and stealing – where the applicant committed the offences whilst on parole for previous like offences – where the sentencing judge imposed a head sentence of three and a half years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after approximately 20 months – where the sentence was concurrent with a sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed in 2008 – where the applicant submits that the sentencing judge erred in not imposing a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after approximately 14 months – where the applicant complains that defence counsel focused on requesting a concurrent sentence while failing to submit comparable cases in which a lesser sentence was imposed – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive

R v Bryant (2007) 173 A Crim R 88; [2007] QCA 247, considered
R v Carter[2008] QCA 226, cited
R v Donald[2000] QCA 399, cited
R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267; [2007] NSWCCA 130, cited
R v Vaughan[2005] QCA 348, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. HOLMES JA:  I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and the order he proposes.

  1. MUIR JA:  The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the following sentences imposed on him on 7 February 2013 in the District Court:

Count Offence Sentence
1 Breaking and entering premises and stealing 3½ years imprisonment
2 Breaking and entering premises and attempted stealing 3½ years imprisonment
3 Wilful damage 12 months imprisonment
4 Possessing dangerous drugs 3 months imprisonment
5 Stealing 12 months imprisonment
6 Burglary and stealing 3½ years imprisonment
7 Stealing 12 months imprisonment
8 Stealing 12 months imprisonment

  1. The sentences were made concurrent with each other and with a sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed on 22 July 2008 for breaking and entering a dwelling at night with intent whilst armed and in company.…

Continue reading R v Hazelgrove

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hazelgrove [2013] QCA 243
Case
[2013] QCA 243
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in the matter of R v Hazelgrove appealed against his sentence, contending that the original sentencing was manifestly excessive. Hazelgrove was convicted of various criminal offences including breaking and entering, stealing, wilful damage, possession of dangerous drugs, and burglary. Notably, the crimes were committed while the applicant was on parole for previous similar offences. The sentencing judge imposed a head sentence of three and a half years imprisonment, with parole eligibility set for approximately 20 months. This sentence was to run concurrently with a prior seven-year sentence from 2008. Hazelgrove argued that the sentencing judge should have imposed a lesser sentence of two and a half years with a parole eligibility date set at around 14 months. He also claimed that his defence counsel erred by focusing on seeking a concurrent sentence rather than presenting comparable cases where lesser sentences were imposed.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed were indeed manifestly excessive or inadequate. This involved considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court also needed to assess whether the applicant's legal representation was deficient in advocating for a lesser sentence. The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge had erred in the severity of the imposed sentence and if this error warranted an appeal.

In evaluating the appeal, the court considered the severity and frequency of the crimes committed, the applicant's history of reoffending, and the necessity to deter future criminal behaviour. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the relevant factors and that the imposed sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. Additionally, the court found no merit in the applicant's contention that his defence counsel had been ineffective in not presenting cases of lesser sentences. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.