R v Roccisano - [2018] QCA 215

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roccisano [2018] QCA 215

PARTIES:

R
v
ROCCISANO, Rocky Martin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 165 of 2017
SC No 432 of 2016
SC No 577 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 29 June 2017 (Douglas J)

DELIVERED ON:

14 September 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Philippides JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of 18 drug-related offences, the most serious of which were trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis) and trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was convicted of eight weapons-related offences, the most serious of which was unlawfully possessing a category H weapon, with the circumstance of aggravation of possessing it in a public place without a reasonable excuse – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis), which was intended to reflect of overall criminality of his offending – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive – where the applicant argued that a global sentence of nine and half years imprisonment should have been imposed for the count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis), without a serious violent offence declaration – whether the sentence imposed on the applicant is manifestly excessive

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, applied
R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, applied
R v Gordon[2016] QCA 10, considered
R v Kalaja[2012] QCA 329, considered
R v Markovski[2009] QCA 299, considered
R v Thornbury[2017] QCA 284, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M Harrison for the applicant
C N Marco for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lawler Magill for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: On 24 January 2017, in the Supreme Court at Brisbane, the applicant, Rocky Martin Roccisano, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, 18 drug-related offences alleged in a 20-count indictment. They were:

Count 1

trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis)

Count 2

trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine)

Counts 3 – 15

supplying a dangerous drug (in 11 instances, cannabis; and in two instances, methylamphetamine)

Count 16

possessing property obtained from trafficking

Count 17

unlawfully possessing a motor vehicle

Count 18

possessing things used in connection with trafficking in a dangerous drug

All offences were against provisions in the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).

Later, on 29 June 2017, the Crown entered a nolle prosequi in respect of Count 19 and the applicant pleaded guilty to, and…

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 Roccisano

Details

AGLC: R v Roccisano [2018] QCA 215
Case: [2018] QCA 215
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Roccisano, was convicted of a series of drug-related and weapons-related offences and sentenced to imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for the most serious drug trafficking offence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court, which needed to determine if the sentence was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the community, thereby warranting interference.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the cumulative effect of the applicant's criminal conduct, and the need for the sentence to reflect the overall criminality of his offending. The court also examined whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, including the potential for rehabilitation and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The applicant contended that a global sentence of nine and a half years would have been more appropriate, without a serious violent offence declaration.

The court found that the sentence of twelve years imprisonment for the trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis) was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the applicant's offending and took into account the totality of his criminal conduct. The court further found that the sentence reflected the need to protect the community and to deter the applicant and others from engaging in similar criminal activity. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was therefore refused.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Roccisano [2018] QCA 215
PARTIES:	R v ROCCISANO, Rocky Martin (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 165 of 2017 SC No 432 of 2016 SC No 577 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 29 June 2017 (Douglas J)
DELIVERED ON:	14 September 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 May 2018
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson and Philippides JJA
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of 18 drug-related offences, the most serious of which were trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis) and trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was convicted of eight weapons-related offences, the most serious of which was unlawfully possessing a category H weapon, with the circumstance of aggravation of possessing it in a public place without a reasonable excuse – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis), which was intended to reflect of overall criminality of his offending – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive – where the applicant argued that a global sentence of nine and half years imprisonment should have been imposed for the count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis), without a serious violent offence declaration – whether the sentence imposed on the applicant is manifestly excessive AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, applied R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, applied R v Gordon[2016] QCA 10, considered R v Kalaja[2012] QCA 329, considered R v Markovski[2009] QCA 299, considered R v Thornbury[2017] QCA 284, distinguished
COUNSEL:	M Harrison for the applicant C N Marco for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lawler Magill for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

Count 1	trafficking in a dangerous drug (cannabis)
Count 2	trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine)
Counts 3 – 15	supplying a dangerous drug (in 11 instances, cannabis; and in two instances, methylamphetamine)
Count 16	possessing property obtained from trafficking
Count 17	unlawfully possessing a motor vehicle
Count 18	possessing things used in connection with trafficking in a dangerous drug