R v Micetic - [2006] VSCA 176

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 371 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
VLADO MICETIC

---

JUDGES:	NETTLE, J.A., COLDREY and BELL, A.JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 August 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 August 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 176

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Whether applicant was fit to plead – Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Whether manifestly excessive – Multiple offences – Theft – Dishonesty – Aggravated burglary – Attempted armed robbery – Applicant suffering from significant psychiatric disorder – Whether a danger to the community – Appeal upheld – Re-sentenced to four years and three months with a non-parole period of three years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	Ms A. Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
The Applicant in person

NETTLE, J.A.:

On 1 December 2004, the applicant, Vlado Micetic, pleaded guilty before a judge of the County Court at Melbourne to two counts of theft of a motor vehicle registration plate (counts 1 and 2), one count of dishonestly handling a stolen police identification badge (count 3), one count of aggravated burglary (count 4) and one count of attempted armed robbery (count 6).

After hearing a plea in mitigation, on 15 December 2004 the judge sentenced the applicant to three months' imprisonment on each of the counts of theft and handling stolen goods, two years' imprisonment on the count of aggravated burglary and four-and-a-half years' imprisonment on the count of attempted armed robbery. His Honour ordered that ten months of the sentence imposed on the count of aggravated burglary be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on the count of attempted armed robbery, thereby making for a total effective sentence of five years and four months' imprisonment. He set a non-parole period of four years.

On 24 December 2004, Victoria Legal Aid filed on behalf of the applicant an application for leave to appeal against sentence. That application was subsequently listed to be heard before a single judge of the Court pursuant to s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958 on 24 June 2005.

On 10 June 2005, however, the applicant himself purported to file a holograph application for leave to appeal against conviction, albeit without an application for leave to extend time, and subsequently, on 16 June 2005, the applicant wrote to the Registrar stating that he wished to appeal against conviction because he had been coerced to plead guilty.

After discussions between the Registrar and Victoria Legal Aid, it was established that the applicant no longer wished Victoria Legal Aid to represent him, and so, therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was taken out of the list.

In July 2005, the applicant sent to the Registrar an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction. It suggested that the applicant may be dissatisfied with the way in which he was represented before the County Court. But then, on 22 September 2005, the applicant’s sister telephoned the…

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 Micetic

Details

AGLC: R v Micetic [2006] VSCA 176
Case: [2006] VSCA 176
Decision Date: 23 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Micetic, appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The nature of the appeal was that the appellant's conviction was for multiple offences including theft, dishonesty, aggravated burglary, and attempted armed robbery. The sentence imposed was that the appellant be detained in custody for a term of five years with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. The appellant argued that he was not fit to plead at the time of the trial and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal court was required to determine whether the appellant was fit to plead at the time of the trial and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court needed to consider the evidence of the appellant's psychiatric condition and the impact it had on his ability to participate in his trial. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant's psychiatric condition and the danger he posed to the community.

The court found that the appellant was fit to plead and dismissed the appeal in that regard. However, the court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant's psychiatric condition and the danger he posed to the community. The court noted that the appellant had a significant psychiatric disorder and that this was a mitigating factor in sentencing. However, the court also noted that the appellant had committed multiple serious offences and that he was a danger to the community. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of four years and three months with a non-parole period of three years was appropriate.

The court upheld the appeal in part and re-sentenced the appellant to four years and three months with a non-parole period of three years.

Orders