Trujillo-Mesa v R - [2010] NSWCCA 201

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Trujillo-Mesa v R [2010] NSWCCA 201

HEARING DATE(S): 6 September 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Price J at 2; Fullerton J at 3

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed.
3. In lieu of that sentence the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years to date from 4 August 2008 and expiring on 3 August 2015, comprising a non-parole period of 4 years and 2 months. The applicant will be eligible for release to parole on 3 October 2012.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - conspiracy to deal with money believed to be the proceeds of crime - whether sentencing judge erred in not affording 25 per cent discount for early plea

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Fairbairn v R [2006] NSWCCA 337; 165 A Crim R 434
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1
R Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES: Gloria Patricia Trujillo-Mesa (App)
The Crown (Resp)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2009/4159

COUNSEL: P Lange (App)
L Crowley (Resp)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (App)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Resp)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/4159

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sorby DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 13 August 2009

2009/4159

HODGSON JA
PRICE J
FULLERTON J
10 SEPTEMBER 2010

TRUJILLO-MESA v R

JUDGMENT

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Fullerton J.

2 PRICE J: I agree with Fullerton J.

3 FULLERTON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court on 13 August 2009 after she pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to deal with money believed to be the proceeds of crime contrary to ss 11.5 and 400.4(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) in the Local Court on 18 March 2009. The offence carried a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $132,000.

4 The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. The sentence was backdated to the date of her arrest in the United States of America in August 2008 pending her extradition to Australia in November 2008.

5 An agreed statement of facts was tendered on sentence. It is not necessary to refer to the facts other than in summary since the application for leave to appeal is limited to what is submitted to be an error in the calculation of the discount for what was an early plea of guilty and a related ground of appeal that the sentencing judge denied the applicant procedural fairness by his apparent acceptance of the Crown’s concession that her sentence would be discounted by 25 per cent in the course of…

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 Trujillo-Mesa v R

Details

AGLC: Trujillo-Mesa v R [2010] NSWCCA 201
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 201
Decision Date: 10 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Trujillo-Mesa v R, the appellant, Trujillo-Mesa, was convicted of conspiracy to deal with money believed to be the proceeds of crime. He appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that the judge had erred in not granting a 25 per cent discount for an early plea. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in not applying a 25 per cent discount for an early plea. The appellant argued that he had entered a plea of guilty before the trial commenced, and thus was entitled to the discount. The Crown contended that the appellant had not entered a plea of guilty until after the trial had begun, and therefore was not entitled to the discount. The court had to determine the timing of the plea and whether it was made early enough to warrant the discount.

The court considered the relevant legislation and case law on the application of the 25 per cent discount for an early plea. It found that the appellant had not entered a plea of guilty until after the trial had begun, and therefore was not entitled to the discount. The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in not applying the discount, and dismissed the appeal. The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was affirmed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The appellant was not entitled to the 25 per cent discount for an early plea, as he had not entered a plea of guilty until after the trial had begun.

Orders