The Queen v Roger Allan Marshall
[2001] NZCA 259
•13 September 2001
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND | CA 218/01 |
THE QUEEN
V
ROGER ALLAN MARSHALL
| Coram: | Richardson P |
| Judgment (on the papers): | 13 September 2001 |
| JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY RICHARDSON P |
The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court prior to his committal for trial to nine charges of burglary, one charge of attempted burglary, four charges of theft and a charge of escaping from lawful custody. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment and now applies to this court for leave to appeal against that sentence. For the reasons which follow, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to determine such an appeal.
Following the appellant's guilty plea, the hearing was adjourned for sentencing in the District Court pursuant to s153A(6)(a) of the Summary Proceedings Act, as the offences charged were all indictable offences triable summarily.
The maximum sentences available to a District Court judge following a s153A guilty plea are set out in s28F(4) of the District Courts Act 1947. A judge warranted under s28B to conduct jury trials may impose the maximum sentence available for the offence in question. Any other judge is limited to the maximum provided by s7 of the Summary Proceedings Act for summary proceedings for an indictable offence: that is five years imprisonment, or a fine of $10,000 or both.
Section 28H provides for appeals from sentences imposed under s28F(4). The appeal is to this court only if the maximum sentences set out in s7 of the Summary Proceedings Act are exceeded, otherwise the appeal is to the High Court under Part V of that Act.
The sentence imposed in the present case was one of four years imprisonment, within the limits of s7, and accordingly the appellant's appeal against it must be to the High Court.
The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
0
0
0