R v Lemmo

[2014] QCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lemmo [2014] QCA 25

PARTIES:

R
v
LEMMO, Jason Vincent
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 201 of 2013
CA No 284 of 2013
DC No 541 of 2011
DC No 312 of 2012
DC No 313 of 2012
DC No 147 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 February 2014

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction refused.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 14 counts of armed robbery, three counts of armed robbery with personal violence, one count of armed robbery with wounding and one count of attempted armed robbery – where the applicant sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for each armed robbery offence – where the applicant claims pleas were coerced – where the applicant claims not to be of sound mind when pleas entered – where no sworn or documentary evidence to support claims – whether it is in the interests of justice to extend the time for appeal

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant committed numerous armed robbery offences in mid 2009 – where the applicant was charged and held in custody for 513 days – where the applicant when released on bail committed a further seven armed robberies in mid 2011 – where the applicant pleaded guilty – where the sentencing judge treated the commission of the 2011 offences whilst the applicant was on bail for the 2009 offences as an aggravating factor – where the applicant sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for each armed robbery offence and a serious violent offence declaration made – whether sentences were manifestly excessive

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, followed
R v Lotoaniui[2013] QCA 71, considered
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, followed

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. MUIR JA:  I agree with the reasons of Mullins J and with the orders she proposes.

1. GOTTERSON JA:  I agree with the orders proposed by Mullins J and with the reasons given by her Honour.

1. MULLINS J:  On 21 November 2012 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Beenleigh to counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 to 12, 15, 16 and 19 on indictment number 541 of 2011…