Criminal law - Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Applicant aged 23 years sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment without eligibility for parole having committed with a co-offender 22 offences of aggravated burglary one offence of armed robbery in company criminal damage one offence of deprivation of liberty and seven offences of stealing a motor vehicle - Applicant committed present offences during his first month of parole - Applicant had extensive history of committing serious offences Held appeal dismissed
1. MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion, this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed, for the reasons to be published by Ipp J. I consider that the period of parole which remains outstanding in respect of sentences imposed upon the applicant in respect of sentences imposed for his prior criminal conduct will mean that he will spend an adequate period under supervision in the community following ultimate release from prison.
2. IPP J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The aggregate sentence in respect of which leave is sought to appeal is 14 years' imprisonment without eligibility for parole. There are two grounds of appeal. Firstly, the applicant says that the total of 14 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. Secondly, the applicant contends that the learned sentencing Judge erred in the exercise of his discretion by denying the applicant eligibility for parole.
3. The offences which gave rise to the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment were many and serious. Together with a co‑offender, one Riley, the applicant committed 22 offences of aggravated burglary, one offence of armed robbery in company, one offence of criminal damage, one offence of deprivation of liberty and seven offences of stealing a motor vehicle. All the offences were committed over a period of 30 days between September and October 1997.
4. Riley targeted premises in which he believed firearms would be located. The applicant participated with Riley in burgling those premises. The two of them successfully stole four firearms, two of which Riley cut down so that they could be concealed. The applicant and Riley committed three offences of aggravated burglary while armed with rifles they had stolen. Disguised by balaclavas…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Jiminez
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7
Case
[1999] WASCA 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the appellant, Jiminez, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court for a series of serious offences. Jiminez, aged 23 at the time of sentencing, was found guilty of 22 counts of aggravated burglary, one count of armed robbery, one count of criminal damage, one count of deprivation of liberty, and seven counts of stealing a motor vehicle. The crimes were committed within the first month of the appellant's parole following a previous sentence. The appellant had a history of serious criminal conduct. The appeal was heard in the higher court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.
The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The key legal issue was whether the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment without eligibility for parole was disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court also had to assess the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and the need for deterrence and denunciation in light of his extensive criminal record.
In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offences and the appellant's history of serious criminal conduct. It determined that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The court also considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and concluded that the sentence was necessary to achieve the aims of punishment, including deterrence and denunciation. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the original sentence.