R. v. Dorozan Date:, 2012 BCPC 281

Citation: R. v. Dorozan Date: 20120612 2012 BCPC 0281 File No: 190221-4-C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DARWIN DUANE DOROZAN ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M.B. HICKS Counsel for the Crown: M. Fortino Counsel for the Defendant: G. Bowen Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 25, 2012 Date of Judgment: June 12, 2012 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Darwin Duane Dorozan has pled guilty on Information 190221-4-C to 12 counts of break and enter to dwelling

houses. In respect of 11 of those counts, he committed theft therein. In respect to one count, he did so with the intent to commit an indictable offence therein. [ 2 ] The pleas were entered on May 3rd of 2012, the scheduled first day of a lengthy trial, although I understand plea discussions had been underway for some time in advance of that date and witnesses were not inconvenienced.

I heard sentencing submissions from counsel on May the 25th, and the matter was adjourned to today's date to impose sentences. [ 3 ] The Crown says the applicable principles of sentencing support sentences which would total 15 years incarceration. The Crown says the application of principles of proportionality and totality call for that to be reduced to a global sentence of eight years, less time spent in custody. [ 4 ] Mr. Bowen, on behalf of Mr.

Dorozan, argues for sentences totalling five years globally, plus pre-sentence custody. [ 5 ] The circumstances of the 12 offences are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts which was filed as Exhibit 1 and which I will summarize as follows. [ 6 ] The first offence in time is covered by Count 18 on the Information. On August 31st of 2010, Mr. Dorozan broke and entered a residence at [address] in Surrey, with intent to commit an indictable offence therein. The homeowner was in his basement when he heard a noise above him. He went upstairs to investigate. As he did so, he called to his wife.

At this point he saw Mr. Dorozan run down the stairs from the upper floor, carrying a backpack. He confronted Dorozan. A struggle followed, during which the homeowner tried to prevent Dorozan from getting away. He pulled off Dorozan's hoodie and a backpack that he carried. Dorozan sprayed the homeowner approximately five times with bear spray, and escaped, leaving the backpack behind. [ 7 ] Police attended. Pry marks were observed around an outside door and a screwdriver was located there. A can of bear spray was located. The backpack contained a methadone prescription in Mr. Dorozan's name.

Various tools suitable for breaking into a place and a piece of paper with a list of addresses and associated phone numbers, including the address and phone number of this residence, was also located. [ 8 ] As is the case with each of the counts Mr. Dorozan has pled to, the homeowner did not know Dorozan, nor did he have permission to be in the residence. The homeowner suffered skin and eye irritation in this case as a result of being sprayed with the bear spray.

The homeowner, in his Victim Impact Statement, said that he has now taken steps to enhance security at his home, and this is a step which has been taken by most of the homeowners affected by the events to which Mr.

Dorozan has pled guilty. [ 9 ] The defence acknowledged that the circumstances of this count are covered by s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code , which requires that in considering a fit sentence, the court treat as aggravating the fact that the home was occupied at the time of the offence, that Dorozan knew or was reckless as to whether the home was occupied, and that he used violence or threats of violence to a person.

Where these factors are present, the circumstances of the offence are often referred to as a home invasion. [ 10 ] In determining a fit global sentence, the Crown seeks, as a component of that, a three-year sentence in respect of this count. [ 11 ] I note from Mr. Dorozan's record that on October 20th of 2010, so just under two months following this break-in, Mr. Dorozan was sentenced to nine months incarceration for a break and enter which he committed in 2007. [ 12 ] Mr.

Dorozan has pled guilty on Count 13 that on April 26th of 2011, he broke into the residence at [address], Surrey, and committed an indictable offence therein. This offence must have occurred very soon after his release from jail following the sentence imposed in October of 2010. [ 13 ] At 1:27 p.m., police received a call from a homeowner, reporting someone had broken into her residence while she was out. On her return, she found a door pried open. The master bedroom had been rifled. The Agreed Statement of Facts sets out a list of electronic equipment: telephone, computer gear and jewellery that were taken.

An iPad was recovered at the time of Dorozan's subsequent arrest several months later, but none of the other property was recovered. [ 14 ] As the investigation developed, investigators identified Mr. Dorozan's cell phone. Telephone records confirm he called this residence from the cell phone three times on April 26th, leading up to the break-in. The family moved from their residence as a result of this offence. [ 15 ] On May 9 of 2011, Dorozan broke into the residence at [address], Surrey. Count 21 addresses this offence. He stole a computer and jewellery with sentimental value to the owners.

None of the property was recovered. The bedroom was rifled and personal belongings strewn about. Mr. Dorozan's backpack was located on June 11th of 2011. Inside was a list of addresses and phone numbers, including this residence. Cellular phone records show Dorozan called this residence the morning of the break-in. [ 16 ] On May 16, 2011, the residence at [address] was broken into and electronic equipment, including two laptops and two phones, were taken. Dorozan pled guilty to Count 5, which covers this offence. The value of the property stolen was $4100 approximately.

This residence address and phone number were on the list found in Dorozan's backpack. The residence was called twice that day from his phone. [ 17 ] Count 4 relates to the break-in at [address] on May 16, 2011. The entry occurred during the day while the family was away from the residence. A quantity of jewellery was taken from a bedroom. The address and phone number of this residence were on the list referred to. The residence was called once on this date from the Dorozan phone. [ 18 ] Count 3 involves a break-in at a residence at [address] in Surrey on May 20th of 2011. A deadbolt was pried open.

Drawers and filing cabinets were rummaged through. A quantity of jewellery, a watch and a laptop were taken, valued in excess of $16,000. None of this property was recovered. This residence was on the list referred to and was telephoned twice on the offence date from the Dorozan phone.

[ 19 ] Count 23 relates to the break-in at [address] in Langley on May 25th of 2011. At 9:00 a.m. the homeowner saw two men in a vehicle, staring at his home, and then depart. Later the residents returned to find the home had been entered and rooms rifled. Electronic items, a laptop and jewellery were stolen, valued in excess of $3,000. None of the items were recovered. The address and phone number were on the list referred to and the home was called once that day.

Dorozan is the registered owner of a vehicle which matches the distinctive features of the vehicle observed earlier in the day by the homeowner. [ 20 ] Count 17 addresses a break-in at [address] in Surrey on May 27th, 2011. Personal belongings were strewn about. A large quantity of electronic equipment, including computers, cameras, a television and jewellery valued in excess of $14,000 was stolen. The jewellery items had significant personal value and were not recovered.

The address and phone number of this residence were on the list and the home was called twice that day. [ 21 ] In respect to Count 15, Dorozan broke into the residence at [address], Surrey, on June 2nd, 2011. The homeowner returned to find a laptop, cash and an iPod missing. The residence was on the list and was called once the day of the break-in, from the Dorozan phone. [ 22 ] On June 9th of 2011, in respect to Count 2, the residence at [address], Surrey, was broken into. Computers and camera equipment, currency and other valuables were stolen and not recovered.

The residence was on the list and called twice that day. Passports were also stolen, including children's passports, which I understand were later recovered. [ 23 ] The circumstances surrounding Count 10 on the Information are particularly troublesome. On June 14th of 2011, the daughter of the homeowner was in the residence on [address] in Surrey at mid-morning. She was alone. She heard someone in the house. She yelled for that person to get out. She locked herself in the bathroom and from there called the police. While on the phone to the police, she said that she could hear the intruder, which was Mr.

Dorozan, rummaging through bedrooms on the level where she was, and despite the fact that her lights and television were turned on. As police arrived, the intruder ran from the home through a neighbouring property. A police dog tracked but lost contact with Mr. Dorozan, who escaped. A backpack was found along the dog track, containing documents with Mr. Dorozan's name on them. A computer from the residence just entered was found in the backpack, along with other items, including tools.

Also in the backpack was the list of hundreds of addresses and associated telephone numbers, including residences associated to the counts which are before the court. Also stolen from this residence and not recovered were personal jewellery items and currency. A vehicle owned by Mr. Dorozan's brother was observed by a resident in the neighbourhood on June the 6th of 2011. [ 24 ] The investigation of these break and enters led to surveillance of a vehicle associated to Mr. Dorozan and to his brother Dane. At 1:23 p.m. on August 15th of 2011, the vehicle was parked in the driveway at [address] in Surrey.

At 1:36 p.m., police saw Dorozan leave that residence, carrying a laptop and other electronic items, to the van and depart. The residence door was found to be insecure. At 1:48 p.m., the Dorozan vehicle returned to that residence and left again with more electronic items. The vehicle drove at high speed as items were thrown from it. The vehicle was pulled over by police and this offender and his brother, Dane, were arrested. This break-in and theft at [address] in Surrey is set out in Count 1 on the Information.

Two flat-screen televisions, two computers, a camera, jewellery items, including a valuable wedding ring, were all taken. Some items thrown from the vehicle were recovered. Loss and damage at this residence exceeded $20,000. [ 25 ] An iPad recovered in the vehicle had been stolen on April 26th of 2011 from the break-in which is set out in Count 13. The iPad had been used by Mr.

Dorozan for personal e-mail and web communication, and to shop for signal jammers and tools suitable for break-in purposes, and to search residential phone numbers in the Surrey area. [ 26 ] This offender's brother, Dane Dorozan, has earlier pled guilty to Count 1. [ 27 ] This man, Darwin Dorozan, admits that he was the principal perpetrator in respect to each offence to which he has pled guilty. [ 28 ] When considering a fit sentence in a criminal case, a court is required to apply and must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing which are set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code .

Section 718 of the Criminal Code states: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, 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: and then the following are listed, (

a) through (f): (

a) to denounce 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 reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 29 ] The other sections that I refer to set out further principles of sentencing, which include the requirement that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I must further take account of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The sentence I impose should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances, and I must bear in mind that consecutive sentences must not be unduly long or harsh. [ 30 ] I stated earlier that in respect to Count 18, s. 318.1 of the Criminal Code applies, which specifically requires that I consider as aggravating the fact that the home in Count 18 was occupied, and that Mr. Dorozan knew that or was reckless as to that fact, and that violence ensued.

In determining a fit sentence globally, I must consider all of these factors in light of the particular circumstances of these offences and this offender. In this way, the determination of a fit sentence is not an arbitrary process, but is a principled consideration of all these factors and is unique to the facts which are before me.

[ 31 ] Break and enter of a dwelling house, whether with intent to commit an offence or where an indictable offence is committed therein, is amongst the most serious criminal offences covered in the Criminal Code . It must always be prosecuted by indictment and it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is treated so seriously because the law has long recognized that everyone is entitled to feel safe and secure against intrusion on his or her privacy in his or her own home. When a person's home is broken into, that sense of security and safety is lost and people feel at risk and vulnerable.

This can extend throughout a neighbourhood and to residents who have not themselves been broken into. They will feel at risk as well. Often a long time will pass before victims are able to recover that feeling of security. For some people, it may never be recovered and they may always have a sense of anxiety. These feelings of vulnerability in one's own home are abhorrent to the community. [ 32 ] Everyone is entitled to know that their privacy will not be intruded upon in the sanctuary of that personal home.

The tenuous nature of this sense of security, the ease with which it can be lost and the effect that loss has on residents is reflected in the Victim Impact Statements filed by many of the people and families which have been victimized by Mr. Dorozan. Here are some of the emotions which are expressed in a selection of those Victim Impact Statements, and I am going to quote briefly from several of them. 1. Family members scared of being broken into again. 2. I'm nervous about leaving home. 3. This was a very unsettling experience. 4. More nervous at home alone. 5. We feel invaded. 6.

I have lived on the same street for 18 years of my life and this incident has warped my sense of security I once had. Not only has the break-in spoiled my sense of security at home, but it is something that continues to follow me in another initiatives. [ 33 ] In respect of Count 10, in which the young woman was present in the house during the break and enter, her mother has expressed the following: As a mother, I worry for her and think of what I can do to help her fears. Although you feel like you are doing all that you can, you still doubt, and that makes me lose sleep sometimes.

The emotional impact is worsened, knowing it is not a first offence. [ 34 ] Several statements refer to the fears suffered by the children living in the home, and the concerns of a parent when, for example, a child's passport is stolen. The sense of loss of personal security is aggravated by the loss of items of great personal value, such as jewellery items, which of course can never be replaced, money raised for a school project, or a laptop which a child worked to earn the money to purchase, or a grandmother's wedding ring.

All of those losses have occurred in this case. [ 35 ] There is reference to a decision to give up long holidays in the future, and in another, the extended time and distress which has been required in order to determine just what was missing from the home. [ 36 ] I recite these statements at some length in order to express as clearly as this opportunity permits the enormous impact each offence has had on the victims, and in some cases will continue to have, and the enormous sense of loss suffered, and to express in this way why it is that this offence is treated as seriously as it is in the Criminal Code and why sentences which make a strong statement of deterrence, both general and specific, and denunciation and protection of the public, are usually called for. [ 37 ] Mr.

Dorozan is 37 years of age. He came to Canada from the Philippines at the age of five with his family. Alcohol was problematic in his family and his parents subsequently separated. He completed Grade 11 and later obtained his GED. He has taken a mechanics program at Kwantlen College and has done work towards an apprenticeship. He also has some training, I understand, as a welder. [ 38 ] I am told that he has a history of abusing alcohol. Over the four years leading to his arrest, he developed a significant heroin addiction, which was costing up to $600 a day.

These offences which I am dealing with were committed to support that addiction. [ 39 ] In his submission, Mr. Bowen said that Mr. Dorozan recognizes the harm that he has caused and is remorseful. Mr. Dorozan also spoke of this at the conclusion of submissions, and expressed his apology to the victims of his offences. Mr. Bowen said that Mr. Dorozan tried to avoid situations where people would be at home during the break-in by casing the homes and calling in advance.

He regrets the situations where people were present at the time, although he agrees that at least on one occasion, he was armed with bear spray, which he used. [ 40 ] While in custody, Mr. Dorozan has completed the Substance Abuse Management program. He is a diligent worker in the tailor shop, which is supported by a letter from the supervisor of that program, and his mother has written letter, all of which I have reviewed. [ 41 ] Of particular significance in assessing a fit sentence is Mr. Dorozan's past criminal history. He has 23 past convictions.

From 1993 to 1999, he received relatively short jail sentences, a fine and suspended sentences with probation orders, for being unlawfully at large, for credit card offences, possession of stolen property offences, thefts, obstruction and threatening offences. In 2001, he was sentenced to two years for robbery with a firearm, and four years concurrent for kidnapping with a firearm. Thereafter, up to 2009, he received modest jail sentences for dangerous driving, possession for the purpose of trafficking on two occasions, obstruction, theft, possession of stolen property and breach of probation.

[ 42 ] On April 17 of 2009, Mr. Dorozan was sentenced to an effective 30-month sentence for five residential break and enters in circumstances similar to the ones that he has pled to before me. As earlier noted, he was then sentenced on October 20th of 2010 to a nine-month sentence for a break and enter occurring in 2007. [ 43 ] I have reviewed all of the cases which have been provided by counsel. They provide general guidance and highlight the factors and sentencing principles which must guide a court in cases like this.

Ultimately, each case is resolved with these factors and principles in mind, and based on the unique circumstances of each case. (See case list attached as addendum.) [ 44 ] It is to Mr. Dorozan's credit that he has pled guilty, avoiding the necessity of a lengthy trial and the anxiety that process would naturally bring to the victims. I take account of his expression of remorse for his conduct and his desire to overcome his addiction. [ 45 ] However, these are serious criminal offences with significant impact and loss for the victims and the community which I described a few minutes ago.

They were carried out in a well-organized and planned manner. These 12 break-ins to private homes were not carried out on momentary impulses. They were part of a money-generating scheme carried out to fuel addiction, and with profound effect. [ 46 ] Mr. Dorozan's recent record is for six residential break and enters for which jail sentences were imposed. Those sentences, which were arguably modest, did not deter Mr. Dorozan. He rapidly re-engaged in the same scheme, following release, as a means to continue to fuel his addiction.

In these circumstances, I agree with Crown counsel that application of the so-called step-up principle and leading to a global sentence in the range of five years does not address the sentencing objectives and concerns at play here. [ 47 ] In this regard, I note the following passage from the reasons of Madam Justice Ryan in the British Columbia Court of Appeal in a case called R. v.

Kory in 2009 where she stated the following at paragraphs 7 and 8: [7] In a case such as this, where the respondent has a lengthy record for which he has received consistently low sentences for the same type of offence, the step-up principle is not of great assistance. It has not worked. [8] Mr. Kory’s record shows that he has not been deterred or rehabilitated by the sentences he has received and remains a threat to his community. This was a serious offence, committed by a persistent criminal.

The principle of the protection of the public through a denunciatory sentence ought to have taken precedence in this case. ( R. v. Kory 2009 BCCA 146 ) [ 48 ] Here, ongoing rehabilitation must take a secondary place in the analysis which I must make, and where protection of the public through separation of Mr. Dorozan is paramount. The past history at this point provides no confidence that Mr. Dorozan's specific deterrence has been achieved. Specific deterrence continues to be an important sentencing objective.

The sentence to be imposed must also make a strong statement of general deterrence and amount to a statement of denunciation of this conduct in strong terms. [ 49 ] The cases I have referred to include sentences for break and enter of residence in the four-to-ten-year range. In some cases, there is a significant past history of similar conduct and may involve more than one count, tending towards the upper end of that range. [ 50 ] Here, the offences cover a one-year timeframe. There is a significant break between the first and the second, but Mr.

Dorozan was in custody, serving a sentence for a break-and-enter offence for a large part of that time. Once out, he became very active, committing ten offences between April 26th and June 14th. The final offence was two months later on August 15th of 2011. [ 51 ] The defence takes the position that concurrent sentences are appropriate, reflecting these offences to have been a spree. The Crown says each is separate and distinct and calls for individual consecutive sentences.

At the end of the day, the sentences I impose must reflect the gravity of the offences and the high degree of moral blameworthiness which rests with Mr. Dorozan, but I must temper that analysis by bearing in mind that a sentence which crushes his hope will offend the principles of proportionality and totality. [ 52 ] I have determined that a fit global sentence is in the range proposed by Crown counsel. A global eight-year sentence reflects a proper balance of sentencing principles, bearing in mind Mr.

Dorozan's past history, the seriousness of these offences, the relentless and organized manner in which they were carried out, their impact on the community, and in particular, their impact and the impact endured by each individual victim and the failure of past sentences to deter him. [ 53 ] Mr. Dorozan, please stand up. Mr.

Dorozan has been in custody for ten months and he is entitled to credit for that time. [ 54 ] He will be sentenced as follows; on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 17, 21 and 23, I impose two-year sentences of incarceration, concurrent on each count. [ 55 ] On Count 18, that is, the break and enter on August 31st of 2010 during which bear spray was used on the homeowner and to which s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code applies, a period of three years incarceration would be appropriate, from which I give credit for ten months of pre-sentence custody.

I impose a further period of two years and two months incarceration, that to be served consecutive to the sentences that I imposed on the earlier ten counts. [ 56 ] On Count 10, the break and enter on June 14 of 2011 during which a young person was present in the home, I impose a three- year consecutive sentence; that is, consecutive to all of the other sentences imposed. [ 57 ] The effect of these sentences is a further period of incarceration of seven years and two months. [ 58 ] There will be a DNA databank order. Mr. Dorozan will provide a sample of his DNA to the National Databank.

It applies on all of the counts, and these are primary designated offences.

[59] There will be a lifetime firearms prohibition order with respect to Count 18 under s. 109 of the Criminal Code. [60] The surcharges are waived. [61] MR. FORTINO: Thank you, Your Honour. And with respect to the remaining counts that apply to Mr. Darwin Dorozan, theCrown directs a stay of proceedings. [62] THE COURT: Thank you. [63] MR. BOWEN: Thank you, Your Honour. [64] THE COURT: Mr. Bowen, thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED) ADDENDUM CASE LIST 1. R. v. Bernier, 2003 BCCA 134 , [2003] B.C.J. No. 466 (B.C.C.A.)2. R. v. Wright, (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4870 (Ont. C.A.) 3. R. v.

Alexander, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1814 (B.C.C.A.) 4. R. v. Arsenault, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2361 (B.C.C.A.) 5. R. v. Pilon, [2006] O.J. No. 5804 (Ont. C.A.) 6. R. v. Pilon, [2006] O.J. No. 2834 (Ont. SCJ) 7. R. v. Faulconer, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1118 (B.C.C.A.) 8. R. v. Alexander, [2008] B.C.J. No. 860 (B.C.C.A.) 9. R. v. Blake, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1162 (B.C.C.A.) 10. R. v. Thomas, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1147 (B.C.C.A.) 11. R. v. Crittenden, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2672 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) 12. R. v. Cardinal, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1318 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) 13. R. v. Logan, Unreported, September 10, 2010, Vancouver Registry 25312 [B.C.S.C.] 14.

R. v. Li, [2009] B.C.J. No. 340 (B.C.C.A.)