R v. Pullos

[2008] QCA 336

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pullos [2008] QCA 336

PARTIES:

R
v
PULLOS, Colin James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 230 of 2008
DC No 1984 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

27 October 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2008

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, White AJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for aggravated fraud, and concurrent six month terms for receiving and fraud – where the applicant pleaded guilty – where the sentence was structured with a parole release date set so that the applicant would notionally serve one-third of the three year term – where the applicant had a substantial criminal history – whether the applicant was given adequate credit for his pleas of guilty and cooperation with police

R v Rhoden[2002] QCA 415, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  When he was aged 44 years, the applicant, who appears in person today, was sentenced to three years imprisonment for aggravated fraud and concurrent six month terms for receiving and fraud.  He had pleaded guilty to the offences.

The applicant committed the fraud over a period of 10 months in the year 2007.  He sold stolen scrap metal on some 49 occasions to recyclers.  He and an accomplice thereby obtained more than $34,000.  The applicant admitted to police investigators that he personally received $11,500 of that.  The applicant had gone to the trouble of registering a business name for these purposes.  The count of receiving related to a stolen drill, which the applicant pawned. 

The applicant had previously accumulated a substantial criminal history for drug offences, and for dishonesty offences in relation to property.  It covers four pages of the record book, apart from an appalling 13 page traffic history.  He has previously been actually imprisoned on a number of occasions.  His criminal history began in 1999.

The sentencing Judge structured the sentence so that the applicant would notionally serve one-third of the three year term.  In fact, the Judge fixed a parole release date only two months ahead of the sentencing, which occurred on the 28 August 2008.  That was because he gave credit for 10 months imprisonment already served in relation to other matters which could not have been the subject of a declaration.  In fact, tomorrow is the applicant's parole release date.

The applicant's complaint in the application form is that he was not given adequate credit for his pleas of guilty and cooperation with the police.  The cases of Rhoden [2002] QCA 415 and Symes CA 46 of [1999] would support the three year term imposed here.  Importantly, once one allows for the applicant's lengthy and highly relevant past criminal history, the sentencing Judge then effectively reduced the time actually to be served by one-third, which was appropriate.
The application has no merit and should be refused.  When called upon to address the Court today, it emerged that the applicant really had not understood the sentence which had been imposed upon him. 

When it was made clear to the applicant that tomorrow is his parole release date and that the 28th of August 2011 merely sets the end point for his term, subject to parole - continuing parole, he indicated that there was nothing in addition which he wished to ventilate in respect of the application.

WHITE AJA:  I agree.

McMEEKIN J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.

-----