R. v. Kawerninski, 2023 BCSC 377

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Kawerninski, 2023 BCSC 377 Date: 20230113 Docket: 42690-2 Registry: Duncan Rex v. Jeremie Michael Kawerninski Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Baird Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for Crown: J. BlazinaCounsel for the Offender: C. HodsonPlace and Date of Hearing: Duncan, B.C. November 7, 2022 & January 13, 2023Place and Date of Judgment: Duncan, B.C. January 13, 2023 INTRODUCTION [1] On May 20, 2022, I found Jeremie Michael Kawerninski guilty of aggravated assault upon Bradly Bunyan, contrary to s. 268 ofthe Criminal Code.

My reasons for doing so are indexed at 2022 BCSC 1440. In brief terms, I found that the offender, in concert withanother person, attacked Mr. Bunyan in a Duncan, B.C. parking lot. The offender was armed with a blade and cut open the palm of thecomplainant's right hand, causing permanent damage and impairment of functionality. [2] Mr. Bunyan was also stabbed in the back and temple area during the attack. These wounds could well have been inflicted by theoffender’s co-assailant, a person called Benjamin May, who is now deceased.

I found, however, that even if some of the physical injuriessustained by the complainant may have been caused by Mr. May, it did not alter the fact that the offender was an active and equalparticipant in a brutal assault as a result of which the complainant was grievously wounded and, without prompt medical attention, couldwell have died. [3] The maximum penalty for aggravated assault is 14 years in prison.

Owing to an amendment to s. 742.1 of the Criminal Codeproclaimed in force on November 17, 2022, after this sentencing hearing began on November 7, 2022, a conditional sentence order isonce again an available disposition if I impose a sentence of less than two years, if I am satisfied that the service of the sentence in thecommunity would not endanger the safety of the community, and if I conclude that such a disposition would otherwise be consistent withthe fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718-718.2. of the Criminal Code. [4] The sentencing authorities submitted to me are as follows: by Crown counsel, R. v.

L.D.W., 2005 BCCA 404; R. v. Craig, 2005BCCA 484; R. v. Tschritter, 2006 BCCA 202; R. v. C.A.H., 2012 BCCA 47; R. v. Kim, 2010 BCCA 590; R. v. Kehoe, 2021 BCSC 2474;and R. v. Adamec, 2021 BCSC 1832; by defence counsel, R. v. Nakamura, 2012 BCSC 327; R. v. Nicholls, 2013 BCSC 1145; R. v.Peters, 2010 ONCA 30, and R. v. F.B., 2015 BCPC 290. [5] These cases establish that the range of sentence applicable on the facts of the present case is between approximately 16 monthsand six years imprisonment: see, for example, R. v. Craig at para. 10; also, more recently, R. v. Nguyen, 2016 BCCA 408 at para. 47,citing R. v.

Johnson (1998), (BC CA), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 274 (B.C.C.A.), in which Prowse J.A. said this in regard towhere within that range a given case will generally fall: Sentences at the lower end of the range tend to be imposed in “fight” situations in which the altercation escalates and results in injuries tothe victim.

Sentences at the higher end of the range tend to be imposed in situations where the victims are attacked with a weapon,without provocation and without any opportunity to defend themselves. [6] Parity is an important principle in criminal sentencing – the notion, that is, that similar offenders who commit similar crimes insimilar circumstances should receive similar penalties. That said, sentencing is an individualised process, and each case falls to bedecided on its own facts and the circumstances of each offender.

Sentencing ranges set out in precedent cases are not grids orstraightjackets, merely guidelines, and I recognise that, in appropriate circumstances, below-range sentences are sometimes imposed foraggravated assault.

[ 7 ] In this case there is the additional factor, and an important one that I will address presently, that the offender is an Aboriginal person, and thus I must pay careful attention to the complex harm that colonization and discrimination have inflicted on Aboriginal peoples: R. v. Whitehead , 2016 SKCA 165 at para. 64 . [ 8 ] The Crown in this case, in a modified position taken this morning, is seeking a penitentiary term of four to five years.

In all of the circumstances of the case, including, especially, the offender's Aboriginal background and the systemic factors and direct discrimination that have negatively affected his progress through life, I have decided that such a sentence would be excessive and unfit.

In my view, on the other hand, defence counsel's original position that a suspended sentence would adequately serve the relevant principles of sentencing was unrealistic, the offender's unfortunate background and personal circumstances notwithstanding. [ 9 ] I would emphasise that this offender has committed a major crime of violence, in which serious physical injury was inflicted, for which he must pay a just and fitting penalty.

A suspended sentence with a period of probation, in my view, would fail rather badly to meet the pre-eminent relevant principles of sentencing, which for everyone convicted of aggravated assault of whatever heritage, are those of denunciation and deterrence. With the renewed availability of a conditional sentence order, which amounts, as a matter of law, to a jail sentence served in the community, the offender has now taken the more sustainable position that his individual circumstances merit such a disposition.

THE OFFENDER [ 10 ] The offender's background and antecedents are set out in a number of reports that were prepared for this sentencing and a previous one in 2017 upon his convictions for breach of recognizance and possession of a prohibited weapon. The more recent reports include a Community Corrections PSR, a psychiatric evaluation from Adult Forensics, and a Gladue report from the BC First Nations Justice Council. [ 11 ] The offender is a 41-year-old Aboriginal male born into the Cowichan Tribes, whose traditional lands and territories are located in and around modern-day Duncan, B.C.

He was adopted at 18 days old by Dr. and Mrs. Kawerninski of Smithers, B.C., where he spent most of his childhood and youth. He was raised alongside his sister who was also adopted. His sister passed away from leukemia last year. The two siblings had always remained in close contact, and the offender was much distressed and grief-stricken by her illness and death. [ 12 ] The offender went to school in Smithers and finished his secondary education at Shawnigan Lake School near Mill Bay, B.C. here on Vancouver Island.

He described his childhood as protected and supportive, but he claims never to have felt accepted by his father or his paternal grandparents. He attributes this to his Indigenous heritage. Outside of his family life, throughout his childhood the offender described being persistently victimised by racism and bullying. He reported that he has always felt like he did not belong in either the Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal world. [ 13 ] He also reported that teachers would show him respect only when they became aware of his last name.

He claims that, when he was young, he was sexually abused on one occasion by an older male acquaintance. He met his birth mother many years ago and lived with her for a time, but it has been decades since he last saw her. His mother is a residential school survivor who suffers from substance abuse and mental health challenges. I assume that these factors account for his adoption at birth, and his removal from his greater family and his hereditary place and culture.

He does not know much more than his natural father's first name, and has never met him. [ 14 ] After high school the offender took post-secondary courses at Malaspina College and the University of Northern British Columbia, obtaining a Diploma in Indigenous Leadership. Between 2001 and 2014, he had a number of jobs: in a veterinary clinic, doing ranch work, and assisting at-risk Aboriginal youths.

He was employed for a time at the Cowichan Band office in Duncan but claims to have been dismissed for whistle-blowing about the mishandling of funds. [ 15 ] Sometime during this interval, the offender met a New Zealand Aboriginal person who came to Vancouver Island on a cultural exchange. In 2006, the offender attended this friend's wedding, after which, while he was still in Wellington, New Zealand, he was kidnapped and severely beaten by a group of white supremacist skinheads who were later charged, convicted, and imprisoned.

The offender was dragged into the back of their vehicle with a pillowcase over his head, badly beaten, and left for dead in a roadside ditch. He required emergency medical intervention including intubation and was left with a closed head injury. He told me during the trial that he can no longer effectively process or remember information. He has never returned to school and suffers from stress and anxiety. [ 16 ] The offender first consumed alcohol when he was 14 or 15 years old and "fell in love with it".

He experimented with marihuana at 18, and tried cocaine for the first time when he was 23 after meeting his biological mother on the reserve. All of this stopped, the offender reported, when he began a long-term, on-and-off relationship with a woman from whom he is now separated, but with whom he parented three children aged 15, 5 and 4 years, the latter being his biological son. [ 17 ] According to the presentence reports, the offender has been unemployed and collecting a disability pension for over a decade. He would like to take a counselling program to help other people.

He is an alcohol and methamphetamine addict. He has been clean for nine months. While on bail he lived in a recovery house in Surrey, B.C. His compliance with bail conditions was patchy. Since conviction he has lived in Smithers with his adoptive parents and there have been no further problems with community supervision. [ 18 ] The offender's criminal history is minimal and has almost no impact on what I have to do here today. At the time of the assault on February 10, 2020, the offender was living on the street. He was under the influence of alcohol and crystal methamphetamine.

He said that the offence was not premeditated. His intention was to confront the complainant regarding the alleged abuse of a woman named Shawna Arnold and to "make him apologise" to her. He claims not to remember the stabbing. He said that “it was not intended to go that far” and that “things got out of hand real quick”. [ 19 ] A Personality Assessment Screener (PAS) administered during his psychiatric assessment noted the offender to be cooperative, polite, well-spoken, insightful and motivated, but that he occasionally struggled to recall timeframes. The PAS response profile indicated

a potential for acting out, social withdrawal, alienation, alcohol problems, anger control, negative affect, and health problems. His risk to re-offend was rated to be moderate, largely in light of historical factors. His combination of the use of alcohol and drugs is a contributing factor for instability and problematic behaviour.

His strengths, however, are his focus on sobriety, family and community support, all of which assist him in managing stress and anxiety. [ 20 ] The probation officer who wrote the community corrections pre-sentence report indicated that the offender lacked empathy and remorse for committing the offence for which he stands convicted, but the psychiatric assessment suggested that the offender has a degree of insight into the harm that he has caused, and recognises and appreciates the importance of drug and alcohol abstinence if he is to improve his life and stay away from criminal misbehaviour.

The psychiatric assessment also noted that the offender feels much healthier for his recent sobriety, and he seems genuinely positive and optimistic about his recovery. His risk to reoffend will likely decrease or increase depending on whether he returns to substance abuse. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [ 21 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

c) to separate offenders from society where necessary;

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community. [ 22 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors relating to the offence or the offender, and, as I have already said, it should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. [ 23 ] As the offender is an Aboriginal person, I must bear in mind the statutory admonition to restraint contained in s. 718.2 (

e) of the Criminal Code . The Gladue report in particular makes it clear that the offender has suffered from racial prejudice throughout his life, not only in Canada but also in New Zealand, where, as I have said, he was viciously attacked by white supremacists and seriously and permanently injured.

His background is redolent of the long-term sequalae referred to in Gladue and Ipeelee of which I take judicial notice – addiction issues, poverty, poor health, negative educational and vocational outcomes, dislocation, and cultural alienation among them. [ 24 ] The offender's brain injury in particular is a serious matter. In my view, it limits his moral culpability for the present offence to a significant degree. It was only after the violent incident in New Zealand, racially motivated, that the offender's life fell apart.

I acknowledge that by that time he had already developed a pattern of abusing alcohol, but apart from that he was getting ahead in life and showed considerable promise both academically and athletically. However, after the attack and the brain injury caused by it, he fell into a cycle of alcoholism, drug addiction and homelessness, and it was in this degraded state that he committed the crime in question.

I consider it to be obvious that these factors have played a major role in bringing this offender before the court. [ 25 ] I mentioned earlier in these reasons that one of the sentencing authorities relied upon by Crown counsel was R. v. Kehoe , upon which an appeal decision was recently released. The five-year sentence imposed by the trial judge in that case was reduced to four years in the Court of Appeal: see R. v. Kehoe , 2023 BCCA 2 .

The appellant in that case, a 30-year-old Métis person, was convicted of aggravated assault after he stabbed another male without provocation and inflicted injuries which would have been fatal without emergency medical intervention. It is a case, in other words, which bears some similarity to this one. [ 26 ] In allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence, Marchand J.A. made the following comments concerning the principles that apply when sentencing Aboriginal offenders: [35] Given Mr. Kehoe’s Métis heritage, s. 718.2(

e) of the Code has special importance. It provides: [A]ll available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders . [Emphasis added] [36] In R. v. Gladue … and R. v. Ipeelee … the Supreme Court of Canada made clear that s. 718.2(

e) is remedial and is intended to deal with the continuing crisis of over - representation of Indigenous offenders in the Canadian criminal justice system … [37] This crisis is driven by the alienation, poverty, substance abuse, lower educational attainment, lower rates of employment, and prejudice experienced by Indigenous people in Canada. Sentencing judges are to take judicial notice of how Canada’s colonial history and post-colonial assimilationist policies have translated into these terrible outcomes … These systemic and background factors do not excuse or justify criminal conduct.

Rather, they provide the necessary context for understanding and evaluating case - specific information during the sentencing exercise … [38] Systemic and background factors affect the incidence of crime and recidivism for all offenders. However, as the Supreme Court

recognized, the circumstances of Indigenous offenders are different from other offenders because many Indigenous people are “victims of systemic and direct discrimination” and “dislocation” and are “substantially affected by poor social and economic conditions” … [39] The over - representation of Indigenous people in Canada ’ s prison population is tied to broad societal issues.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in Gladue and Ipeelee recognized that culturally attuned sentencing for Indigenous offenders has a role to play in addressing this crisis … [40] Accordingly, Gladue and Ipeelee transformed the approach to sentencing Indigenous offenders.

As with all offenders, a judge sentencing an Indigenous offender must take a holistic approach to imposing a fit sentence that is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender … However, since the circumstances of Indigenous offenders are “significantly different” from those of non-Indigenous offenders, the judge must pay particular attention to two factors: 1. The unique systemic or background factors that may have played a

part in bringing the particular Indigenous offender before the courts; and 2.

The types of sentencing procedures and sanctions that may be appropriate for the offender in the circumstances given their particular Indigenous heritage or connection. . . . [41] In considering systemic and background factors, the judge must take account of all the surrounding circumstances, including “the unique circumstances of the offender as an aboriginal person,” and display sensitivity to and understanding of the “difficulties aboriginal people have faced with both the criminal justice system and society at large” … [42] It is not necessary to establish a direct causal link between systemic and background factors and the offence at issue.

How the complex interplay of historical factors impacted a particular Indigenous offender may be difficult or impossible to establish. Nevertheless, the specific systemic or background factors at play are critically important. They may help the court assess the moral blameworthiness of the offender or identify appropriate sentencing objectives … [43] As for the appropriate sanctions, while restorative sentences may be more appropriate for Indigenous offenders, applying Gladue principles will not necessarily lead to a reduced sentence.

There is no automatic heritage-based discount … Generally, the more serious or violent the crime, the more likely it will be, as a practical matter, that the terms of imprisonment will be the same for an Indigenous and a non - Indigenous offender … [44] That said, no offence is so serious that it negates the need for a sentencing judge to consider s. 718.2(

e) of the Code and Gladue principles … In fact, absent an informed waiver, sentencing judges have a duty to consider s. 718.2(

e) and Gladue principles in every case involving an Indigenous offender … As the Court explained in Ipeelee … a failure to do so constitutes an error in principle justifying appellate intervention … [ 27 ] The present offender has been negatively affected by the systemic factors emphasised in the passages that I have just quoted – his mother a residential school survivor with mental health deficits and addiction issues, his adoption and removal from his own people immediately after he was born, the subsequent struggles that he experienced as an Aboriginal person growing up in an alien, predominantly non-Aboriginal setting and community, and his lifelong belief that he belongs in neither world.

There is also compelling evidence of direct racial discrimination experienced by this offender, including not only the bullying at school, but the vicious attack against him in New Zealand and the subsequent unravelling of his life. I have not the slightest doubt that these systemic and background factors have played a strong and directly causal role in bringing this particular Indigenous offender before the court. Such a causal nexus is not necessary but it is certainly present here. [ 28 ] An important distinguishing feature between this case and Kehoe is that Mr.

Kehoe had a long record of 33 prior convictions, both as a youth and an adult, including six robbery-related offences, four offences involving threatening, one involving weapons and numerous breaches of court orders and conditional sentences, as well as parole violations. This present offender, by marked contrast, has only a minor criminal record and thus has managed over four decades of non-violent and more or less non-criminal life despite the fact, as I have said, that Gladue factors have been significantly and negatively impactful upon him.

He has never spent any time in jail except on this charge, and unlike Mr. Kehoe, he suffers from discernible and significant cognitive and intellectual deficits.

To this extent, in my view, the four-year sentence imposed on appeal in Kehoe would be excessive in the this case and in the circumstances of this offender. [ 29 ] Still, on the basis of my observations of the offender throughout these proceedings, both while he testified and in his statement to me before sentencing, I tend to agree with the PSR writer that he does not seem to appreciate the gravity of his misconduct, or sympathise with the victim's suffering.

My strong overall impression, in fact, is that he either continues to deny responsibility for the crime in question, or is unconcerned and unrepentant about what he has done.

There are certainly compelling Gladue considerations present here, but these are not, as is stressed in almost every decision on the subject, to be taken as requiring an automatic reduction of an otherwise just punishment, and to my way of thinking they do not amount to the sort of exceptional circumstances that would justify a suspended sentence, which as I have said was the offender's principal position in his original submissions. [ 30 ] I have much sympathy for the offender and the hardships that he has suffered, and also for his adoptive parents, who have been present in my courtroom for every minute of this trial, and whose ceaseless devotion to the offender is admirable.

It has to be repeated, however, that this case involves a major crime of violence occasioning serious and permanent bodily harm to a defenceless, unarmed and outnumbered victim. I would characterise the offender's conduct as callous, cowardly and vicious. The predominant principles of sentencing remain those of denunciation and deterrence. Gladue considerations do not overwhelm or change this. The principle of rehabilitation is an important but secondary concern. [ 31 ] I appreciate, of course, that the lack of remorse or contrition is not an aggravating factor, merely the absence of a mitigating one.

However, the offender's paucity of insight into his conduct, his lack of empathy for his victim, and his long-standing drug and alcohol addictions, all raise legitimate concerns about his likelihood to re-offend, rated to be moderate in the psychiatric report, as I have said. I

have concluded, even after serious consideration is given to the misfortunes of his background, that this offender requires and deserves a denunciatory and corrective penalty. Anything short of a jail sentence would be inadequate to punish him appropriately for what he has done, or to act as a sufficient deterrent to himself or others.

A lesser disposition would likewise fail to provide suitable reparations for the harm that the offender has done to the victim and the community, or properly promote a sense of responsibility in him for his violent and profoundly antisocial misconduct. [ 32 ] I have concluded, therefore, that a jail sentence is required in this case. Counsel have agreed that the offender is entitled to credit for the equivalent of 261 days in pretrial custody on this charge, or roughly 8.7 months.

Combined with an additional sentence of two years less one day, the result would be a cumulative effective sentence of some 32.7 months.

In the circumstances of this case and of this offender, combined with a period of rehabilitative probation to follow, I consider this to be a fit sentence. [ 33 ] After much consideration, I have also concluded that a conditional sentence order with appropriately punitive, deterrent, corrective and rehabilitative conditions will not endanger the safety of the community, and will otherwise be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 - 718.2 of the Criminal Code , including the requirement of restraint, especially as applied to the Aboriginal offender before me, set out in s. 718.2 (e).

Such a disposition also takes account of the over- representation of Indigenous offenders in Canadian prisons and penitentiaries and constitutes a reasonable alternative in all the circumstances. While I have rejected a probationary sentence as inadequate, in my view, a penitentiary sentence on top of the time already served would be excessive, and I reject it as a fit penalty, as well. [ 34 ] Stand up please, Mr. Kawerninski. [ 35 ] On this charge of aggravated assault before the court, I hereby sentence you to a period of imprisonment of two years less one day.

Your criminal record is to be endorsed with a notation that this sentence has been ordered in addition to the 261 days that you have already spent in custody. This sentence will be served in the community as provided for in s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code . The terms and conditions of the conditional sentence order will be: • You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. • You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. • You must report to a conditional sentence supervisor here in Duncan by no later than 4:00 p.m. this afternoon.

After that, you must report as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor. • You must notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor of any change in employment or occupation. • When first reporting to your conditional sentence supervisor, you must provide them with the address where you live and your telephone number. • You must not change your address or telephone number without prior written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. • You must remain in British Columbia unless you have the written permission from the court or your conditional sentence supervisor to leave the province. • For the first 12 months, you must obey house arrest by being inside your residence, or on its lot, 24 hours a day, every day. • For the remainder of your sentence, you must obey a curfew by being inside your residence, or on its lot, between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. every day. • You must present yourself immediately at the door to your residence or answer the telephone when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends or calls to check on you during the house arrest or curfew hours. • You may be away from your residence during the house arrest or curfew hours with the prior written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor.

Such permission is only to be given for employment or other compelling reasons. You must carry the permission, which can be in electronic format, with you when you are outside your residence. • You may also be away from your residence during the house arrest or curfew hours while at, or going directly to, or returning directly from a health care facility because of a medical emergency concerning you or your family.

If asked, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with proof of your attendance at the facility. • You must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substance except with a medical prescription. • You must provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance on the demand of a peace officer or the conditional sentence supervisor, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to suspect that you have consumed drugs, alcohol, or any other intoxicating substance. • You are not to possess any weapons, including a knife, except for the purposes of cooking or employment. • You must not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge, nightclub, beer garden or any other business from which minors are prohibited at any time by the terms of a liquor licence. • You must attend, participate in and complete any intake, assessment, counselling or education program directed by your conditional sentence supervisor.

This may include but is not limited to counselling or programming for (

a) alcohol and drug addiction; or (

b) trauma recovery.

• Having consented, you must attend for a psychiatric intake, assessment or treatment program through Forensic Psychiatric Services as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor. • You must complete 200 hours of community work under the direction of your conditional sentence supervisor. Your community work service must be completed within the first 18 months of this conditional sentence order. [ 36 ] Upon the expiry of your conditional sentence order you will be bound by the terms and conditions of a probation order of 18 months duration.

The conditions of this probation order are as follows. • You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. • You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. • Within 48 hours of your conditional sentence order expiring, you must report in person to a probation officer, at the location nearest to where you are then living, and thereafter, you must report as and when directed by your probation officer. • You must notify your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or your probation officer of any change in employment or occupation. • You must remain within British Columbia unless you have the prior written permission from the court or your probation officer to leave the province. • When first reporting to your probation officer, you must provide them with the address where you live and your telephone number. • You must not change your address or telephone number without prior written permission from your probation officer. • You must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substance, except with a medical prescription. • You are not to possess any weapons, including a knife, except for purposes of cooking or employment. • You must not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge, nightclub, beer garden or any other business from which minors are prohibited at any time by the terms of a liquor licence. • You must attend, participate in and complete any intake, assessment, counselling or education program directed by your probation officer.

This may include but is not limited to counselling or programming for (

a) alcohol or drug addiction; or (

b) trauma recovery. • Having consented, you must attend for a psychiatric intake, assessment, or treatment program through Forensic Psychiatric Services as directed by your probation officer. [ 37 ] I consider it my duty to inform you, Mr. Kawerninski, that if you violate the terms of your conditional sentence order, you may be charged, prosecuted, and ordered to spend a portion or all of the unexpired sentence in jail. [Ancillary orders spoken to] “Baird J.”