Legal Research
Cases
Holtz v The King

Holtz v The King

Case [2024] NZCA 585 13 November 2024

Sentencing

Starting Point

Guilty Plea Credit

Personal Mitigating Factors

Parity

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA799/2023
[2024] NZCA 585

BETWEEN	ZION HAMUERA HOLTZ Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	1 August 2024
Court:	Courtney, Mander, Walker JJ
Counsel:	E P Priest for the Appellant I L M Archibald for the Crown
Judgment:	13 November 2024 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Walker J)

Mr Holtz appeals the sentence of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge J Jelaš in the District Court at Auckland on one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply (jointly with another) and one representative charge of supply of methamphetamine.[1] Mr Holtz contends the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. In particular, he says that the starting point was too high, the credit for his guilty plea was too low and the discount for personal background factors, rehabilitative prospects and remorse was insufficient. He also argues that the end sentence lacked parity with the sentence imposed on his co-offender.

Background

[1]R v Holtz [2023] NZDC 26547 [judgment under appeal].

Mr Holtz lived with his co-offender at an address in Auckland, having been released from prison on 16 November 2022. He was subject to release conditions including monitoring by a GPS tracking bracelet. Within a few days of release, he allowed his tracking bracelet to go flat. He remained unmonitored for a period of approximately 22 hours leading to a charge of breaching prison release conditions.[2]
[2]Mr Holtz was convicted and discharged of this offence: at [26].
On 19 December 2022, Mr Holtz communicated with several people on Wickr, an encrypted messaging application.[3] They discussed the prices Mr Holtz would charge for providing ounces of methamphetamine to them.
[3]Police analysed Mr Holtz’s phone after execution of a search warrant at his home.
On 20 December 2022, Mr Holtz communicated with an associate on Wickr about buying a kilogram of methamphetamine from them for $145,000. The associate advised Mr Holtz to sell ounces of methamphetamine more cheaply so that they would sell faster, suggesting to him “let’s flood the market”. The associate told
Mr Holtz that the price would come down for future deals if he sold the kilogram of methamphetamine quickly.
On 21 December 2022, Mr Holtz again messaged several people on Wickr, this time about calling in debts for methamphetamine he had earlier supplied to them. The messages demonstrated that Mr Holtz had supplied methamphetamine valued at $36,000, the equivalent of at least 170 g.
On 22 December 2022, police executed a search warrant at his home. Both he and his co-offender were at the house. When police arrived, they saw his co-offender dropping a shopping bag out of the bedroom window. The bag contained seven individually wrapped snap lock bags with a combined weight of 984.6 g of methamphetamine. Other items consistent with the supply of methamphetamine were found including plastic wrap, snap lock bags, digital scales and $1,762.90 in…

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 Holtz v The King

Details

AGLC: Holtz v The King [2024] NZCA 585
Case: [2024] NZCA 585
Decision Date: 13 November 2024 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zion Hamuera Holtz appeals against his sentence of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court at Auckland. Holtz was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for supply (jointly with another) and one representative charge of supply of methamphetamine. Holtz argues the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal considered the arguments regarding the starting point of the sentence, credit for a guilty plea, and discount for personal background factors, rehabilitative prospects and remorse. Holtz argued the starting point was too high, the credit for his guilty plea was too low, and the discount for personal background factors was insufficient. The Court of Appeal rejected Holtz's arguments. The starting point of 11 years and six months was within the available range. The 20% credit for Holtz's guilty plea was within the Judge's discretion given the strength of the prosecution case. The 15% discount for personal background factors was also within the available discretionary range. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal against sentence is dismissed. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Holtz's arguments and upheld the original sentence imposed by the District Court. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point, credit for the guilty plea, and discount for personal background factors were all within the available range and discretion of the sentencing Judge. As a result, the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the original sentence of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment stands.

Orders