R. v. McCorriston

The appellant, McCorriston, was convicted of aggravated burglary and recklessly causing serious injury to a police officer. He was sentenced to a total of 3 1/2 years imprisonment, with the court considering the effect of the drugs on his behaviour and his young age. McCorriston appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive, and sought leave to argue additional grounds of appeal relating to sentencing errors. The Crown opposed the appeal and the additional grounds.

The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentence was excessive, and the appropriate approach to considering additional grounds of appeal in criminal cases. The court needed to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive or disproportionate, and whether the additional grounds raised by the appellant could be considered under the general ground of appeal of manifest excess.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offences, the effect of the drugs on McCorriston, and his age. The court also held that discrete sentencing errors, such as the issue of manifest disparity, could not be argued under the general ground of manifest excess. Instead, these issues required separate grounds of appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

The court did not make any orders altering the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 3 1/2 years imprisonment was upheld.