R. v. Mayo, 2022 NLSC 71

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Mayo , 2022 NLSC 71 Date : April 19, 2022 Docket : 202006G0098 Her Majesty The Queen v. Bradley Mayo Before: Justice Garrett A. Handrigan Place of Hearing: Grand Bank, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: March 9, 2022

Summary: Bradley Mayo pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a commercial establishment with intent to steal from it. He appeared for sentencing. The Court, with the concurrence of defence counsel, accepted the facts that the Crown offered to support the charge and found Mr. Mayo guilty of the offence. The Crown submitted that Mr. Mayo should be sentenced to 12 months in jail for the offence, because of his serious criminal record and the extensive damage he did to the business. Mr. Mayo’s counsel agreed that Mr.

Mayo’s actions justified a jail sentence but he believed that 10 months in jail was more appropriate. The Court accepted the Crown’s submission and sentenced Mr. Mayo to 12 months in jail, to be served consecutively to any sentences he is serving now. It also ordered him to be bound by a probation order for 1 year from the date he is released from custody for this offence during which he will abide by the statutory conditions and report to and be under the supervision of the adult probation officer. Additionally, it ordered that Mr.

Mayo provide such samples of his DNA as are required for analysis and finally to pay a victim surcharge of $200. Appearances:

Alison J. Manning Appearing on behalf of the Crown Marcus A. Evans, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Murphy , 2021 NLSC 170 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code of Canada , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Handrigan, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On February 24, 2022, Bradley Mayo pleaded guilty to one count of break and entry, with intent to commit an indictable offence, contrary to section 348 (1) (

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 . Mr. Mayo had pleaded not guilty to this offence on October 29, 2020 but, at his request, he was rearraigned and changed his plea to guilty. [ 2 ] I accepted Mr. Mayo’s guilty plea and convicted him of the offence after he accepted the facts that the Crown read into the record to support the charge. Then I heard submissions from the Crown and Mr. Mayo on sentence and reserved my judgment until now. THE ISSUE [ 3 ] This matter raises one issue: What is a fit and proper sentence for Mr. Mayo for this offence? THE LAW Statute [ 4 ] Section 348 (1) (

a) of the Criminal Code provides, as relevant here: 348

(1) Every one who (

a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, … is guilty (

e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. [ 5 ] Any discussion of sentences for criminal offences must start with the statement of principles that appears in

section 718 and following sections of the Criminal Code . Those principles encompass broad considerations from denunciation, through deterrence, reparation, rehabilitation and the general promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders for the losses they cause their victims. [ 6 ] Also of concern are proportionality, the alternatives to incarceration where they are both available and appropriate, and the factors that mitigate or aggravate the offence.

The overriding consideration throughout these sections is protecting the public and the challenge is to achieve it, in the legislative context and the circumstances of the offence. Ultimately, the sentence must fit the offence and the offender. [ 7 ] Communicating to accused persons and others of like mind that they must refrain from criminal activity is one of the primary goals of sentencing. Denunciation is also important.

Overall, deterrence, and especially general deterrence, and denunciation must be stressed when sentencing offenders who break into other’s property and cause significant damage to it and corresponding losses for its owners, as Mr. Mayo did here. Case Law

[ 8 ] In a recent decision of this Court, R. v. Murphy , 2021 NLSC 170 , O’Flaherty, J. reviewed the sentencing decisions from this jurisdiction for break, entry with intent at a commercial establishment. In that case, Mr. Murphy was accused with another of breaking and entering a billiards lounge and bar, although his role appeared not to extend beyond driving his co-accused to the premises, waiting in the vehicle while the other broke in and burgled the premises and then driving away from the scene accompanied by his co-accused.

The police, answering a complaint about the break-in, stopped the vehicle shortly and arrested Mr. Murphy and the other when they found a large pry bar and set of wire cutters in plain view on the back seat and $4,360 in $20 dollar bills on the co-accused. [ 9 ] A jury convicted Mr. Murphy of break and entry with intent, possessing stolen property, possessing tools for breaking in, conspiring to break and enter and mischief by damaging a power meter. O’Flaherty, J. said of Mr.

Murphy that he “…had a bad drug problem and a troubled history, but [was] one who had never been in trouble with the law until his conviction for these serious offences” ( Murphy , paragraph 12 ). [ 10 ] After his review of the law, O’Flaherty, J. concluded that “…the range of sentences for a break and enter with intent involving a commercial premises is quite broad, and can extend from a starting point of a conditional sentence to a period of incarceration of three years” ( Murphy , paragraph 34 ). In the end, he sentenced Mr.

Murphy to “…12 months’ imprisonment for the break and enter with intent, less 32 days for the 21 days the Offender has already spent in custody” ( Murphy , paragraph 37 ). He imposed lesser sentences of imprisonment for the other four offences but allowed Mr. Murphy to serve all sentences concurrently. [ 11 ] This is the law I will apply to the issue I stated above. I turn now to discuss that issue starting with the background to it. ANALYSIS Background [ 12 ] The Crown provided a

summary of the facts to support Mr. Mayo’s plea of guilty. I took this from the transcript of the proceedings for that day: JUSTICE: Good morning Ms. Manning [Crown Counsel] and Mr. Evans [Defence Counsel]. Ms. Manning, are you ready to proceed? CROWN: Yes, Justice, we are. I’ll start with the facts, Justice. On March 12th, 2019, at approximately 9 a.m., Marystown RCMP received a telecoms report, reporting a break and enter at Pauline’s Place in Salt Pond, Burin, Newfoundland and Labrador. Jeff Smith is a maintenance worker at the building and reported seeing plywood pried off to gain entry into the building.

At approximately 9:08 a.m., Cpl. Foley arrived at the scene at Pauline’s Place and spoke with Jeff Smith who reported he observed damage to the building and reported it right away. He had not gone into the building or touched anything. There were a number of footprints in the snow and ice that appeared to have come from a large boot. Cpl. Foley went inside to observe that the cash register was on the floor, the drawer open, the organizer out, with some change scattered in the area of the counter. In through the kitchen and back area there were candy machines that had been broken into and smashed beyond repair.

The change compartments had been ripped out and emptied. They had been taken from the front of the store and thrown into the kitchen. In through the back cooler, where the suspect had gained entry, was extremely damaged. The plywood was removed from the wall to gain access, there was a lot of food spoiled because of the damage. Cpl. Foley contacted Cpl. Lee of the forensic identification

section in Clarenville. She advised she would attend the scene. At approximately 12:00 p.m., Cpl. Lee attended Pauline’s Place. She obtained photos of the footprints which appeared to be a single set of boots, indicating there was one suspect. She examined the point of entry and noticed some faint discoloration in the path of snow that looked like diluted blood. Cpl. Lee found blood on the vapor barrier plastic which had been ripped open to gain entry to the back of the building.

Justice, I filed some photographs, and you’ll see in these in the second page of photos, KL6117 and KL6124 where entry had been gained to the back of the building. You can see the plywood had been ripped off and you can see the Tyvek on the inside of the wall, that’s where the blood was located. Cpl. Lee used a test strip to confirm what she saw was blood and it tested positive. The stain was on the side of the plastic facing the outer wall and was fresh and wet. She obtained a swab of the blood and turned it over to Cpl. Foley to exhibit and process through the RCMP forensic laboratory.

She obtained photos of the scene. On April 2nd, 2019, the swab of the blood was sent to the RCMP national forensic laboratory services for analysis. On May 26, 2019, Cpl. Foley received an email from the RCMP national forensic laboratory advising the DNA sample had been analyzed and there was a positive test DNA test for an unknown suspect. The same DNA had hit for a break and enter at another location. On June 17th the swab was returned to the detachment. On Friday, August 16th, 2019, Bradley Mayo was arrested by Cst. Greentree at the Provincial Court in Grand Bank for another matter. Cst.

Tulk assumed custody of Mr. Mayo to transport him back to the Marystown detachment. At this time Mr. Mayo asked if he could have a cigarette before they drove back to Marystown. Cst. Tulk allowed him the opportunity to have a cigarette. On finishing the cigarette Mr. Mayo asked Cst. Tulk what to do with the butt. Cst. Tulk told him he would take it. Mr. Mayo gave Cst. Tulk the cigarette butt. Cst. Tulk was advised Mr. Mayo was a potential suspect in relation to Pauline’s break and enter, and the cigarette butt was seized for DNA analysis. Cst. Tulk advised that the cigarettes were belonging to Mr.

Mayo and once received from Cst. Tulk was placed in the exhibit locker. On August 8th, Cpl. Foley received approval to prepare the cigarette butt for DNA analysis.

On November 20th, 2019, Cpl. Foley received verification that the DNA recovered from the discarded cigarette had matched the suspect for that of the break and enter at Pauline’s Place. On January 4th, 2020, Cpl. Foley prepared a DNA Warrant and ITO for Mr. Mayo’s blood. On January 16th, 2020, the DNA Warrant and ITO were signed by Provincial Court Judge Harold Porter. On January 23rd, 2020, at 3:40 p.m., Cst. Mitchell detained Bradley Mayo at the Marystown Detachment to execute a DNA Warrant. He understood he had the opportunity to speak with legal counsel as requested. DNA was taken from Mr. Mayo. Cst.

Mitchell attempted to obtain a statement from him, he would not provide the same. On February 6th, 2020, the sample was forward to the RCMP forensic lab. On March 11th, 2020, Cst. Mitchell received the results of the DNA analysis from the forensic lab, which concluded that the DNA sample obtained from Bradley Mayo, the DNA Warrant, matched the DNA sample found at the scene at Pauline’s. On July 17th, 2020, Cst. Greentree located Mr. Mayo walking on Greenwood Street and was aware he was arrested for break and enter. He was advised he was under arrest for break and enter. He said no and tried to push past Cst.

Greentree. Cst. Tulk was contacted for assistance. Cst. Greentree took control of Mr. Mayo’s arm, told him he was under arrested. She got hold to him, got him in cuffs, got him in the back of the police vehicle, read his rights to counsel and police caution from the RCMP card. He wished to contact counsel. He did not wish to provide a statement. On July 17th, 2020, he was released on an undertaking at the Grand Bank Provincial Court.

DNA typing profile said the estimated probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the Canadian Caucasian population with the same DNA profile was 1 in 46 quintillion. Cst. Barker spoke with Pauline Kirby regarding the damages to the restaurant. By the time the DNA was solved, the restaurant had been sold to new ownership and she was no longer owning it.

At the time, she had been out $2,000 she said to her personally, they had to replace the cash register, all contents of the freezer were lost, they had to shut down for the day, and then to replace the candy machine and there was money taken from them. She spoke with Jeff Smith, he said the total cost of material damages to the building was $857.07, the labor was $3,840 in relation to repairing the damage done to the building. Those are the facts the Crown relies on in relation to the break and enter. You can see there is a package of photographs prepared by Cpl.

Lee which show the damage, the cash register on the floor, the broken candy machines, and the access point into the cooler on inside, that’s the last page, showing the damage to obtain access. Those would be the facts the Crown relies on, Justice. JUSTICE: Mr. Evans, are those facts accepted? DEFENCE: Yes, we agree with those facts your honor. JUSTICE: Alright. Based upon those facts and the plea of guilty that was entered in this matter on February 24 th , 2022, I find Mr. Mayo guilty of the offence. [ 13 ] This

summary of the facts provides the background to this matter. I turn now to discuss an appropriate sentence for Mr. Mayo, against that background. Discussion [ 14 ] Bradley Mayo was born February 27, 1988 and is now 34 years old. He was 31 years old when he committed this offence. Mr. Mayo did not request a pre-sentence report so I know little about his antecedents. However, I do know that Mr. Mayo has an extensive criminal record.

It runs to seventeen pages and covers the sixteen years between October 31, 2005 and March 1, 2021. [ 15 ] This table shows the offences he was convicted of, when the convictions occurred and the sentences that he received for them: # Date Offence Disposition 1 March 31, 2005 Possessing property obtained by crime 2 years’ probation 2 March 15, 2006 Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm Secure custody, 40 days, 2 years’ probation 3 March 15, 2006 Assault Secure custody, 40 days concurrent, 2 years’ probation 4 March 15, 2006 Failure to comply with a sentence or disposition Secure custody, 40 days concurrent, 2 years’ probation 5 March 15, 2006 Failure to comply with a sentence or disposition Secure custody, 40 days concurrent, 2 years’ probation

6 March 15, 2006 Mischief by damaging property Secure custody, 40 days concurrent, 2 years 7 June 14, 2006 Failure to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance 6 months’. concurrent 8 June 14, 2006 Failure to comply with a sentence or disposition 6 months’ jail, concurrent 9 June 14, 2006 Failure to comply with a sentence or disposition 6 months’ jail, concurrent 10 June 14, 2006 Failure to comply with a sentence or disposition 6 months’ jail, concurrent 11 June 14, 2006 Failure to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance 6 months’ jail, concurrent 12 June 14, 2006 Breaking, entering and committing indictable offence 6 months’ jail, concurrent 13 June 14, 2006 Breaking, entering and committing indictable offence Restitution, DNA order, probation 2 years, 729 days in jail, consecutive 14 June 14, 2006 Failure to comply with sentence or disposition 6 months’ jail, concurrent 15 June 14, 2006 Failure to comply with sentence or disposition 6 months’ jail, concurrent 16 June 14, 2006 Public mischief, by making a false statement 6 months’ jail, concurrent 17 June 14, 2006 Theft under $5000 6 months’ jail, concurrent 18 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering and committing indictable offence Probation, 2 years 19 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering and committing indictable offence Probation, 2 years 20 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering and committing indictable offence Probation, 2 years 21 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering and committing indictable offence Probation, 2 years 22 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering and committing indictable offence Probation, 2 years 23 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering, with intent Probation, 2 years 24 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering, with intent Probation, 2 years 25 June 28, 2006 Breaking and entering, with intent Probation, 2 years 26 July 4, 2011 Theft under $5000 30 days’ jail, consecutive 27 July 4, 2011 Public mischief, by making a false statement 90 days’ jail, concurrent 28 July 4, 2011 Breaking and entering and committing an indictable offence 12 months’ jail, consecutive 29 July 4, 2011 Theft over $5000 30 days’ jail, concurrent 30 July 4, 2011 Breaking and entering, with intent 9 months’ jail, consecutive 31 July 4, 2011 Breaking and entering and committing an indictable offence 9 months’ jail, concurrent 32 July 4, 2011 Breaking and entering and committing an indictable offence 9 months’ jail, consecutive, order for DNA 33 July 4, 2011 Possessing property obtained by crime 30 days’ jail, concurrent 34 July 4, 2011 Breaking and entering and committing an indictable offence 12 months’ jail, consecutive 35 July 4, 2011 Breaking and entering, with intent 9 months’ jail, consecutive, order for DNA 36 December 14, 2016 Resisting or obstructing a peace officer 60 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months, surcharge of $100 37 December 14, 2016 Possessing controlled drug or substance 60 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months, order of forfeiture, surcharge $200 38 January 25, 2018 Failure to comply with probation order 9 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months, surcharge $100 39 January 25, 2018 Failure to comply with probation order 9 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months, surcharge $100 40 January 25, 2018 Theft under $5000 7 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months

41 January 25, 2018 Theft under $5000 3 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months, surcharge $100 42 August 28, 2018 Failure to comply with probation order 30 days’ jail, consecutive, surcharge $100 43 June 27, 2019 Failure to comply with probation order 15 days’ jail, consecutive 44 August 20, 2019 Failure to comply with undertaking or recognizance 23 days’ jail, concurrent, probation 12 months 45 August 20, 2019 Theft under $5000 23 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months 46 August 20, 2019 Failure to comply with undertaking or recognizance 30 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months 47 August 20, 2019 Failure to comply with undertaking or recognizance 30 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months 48 August 20, 2019 Theft under $5000 30 days’ jail, consecutive, probation 12 months 49 March 1, 2021 Flight from peace officer 90 days’ jail, time served, prohibited from driving for 12 months 50 March 1, 2021 Failure to comply with probation order 30 days’ jail, concurrent, time served 51 March 1, 2021 Resisting or obstructing a peace officer 30 days’ jail, consecutive, time served 52 March 1, 2021 Resisting or obstructing a peace officer 30 day’s jail, consecutive, probation 12 months 53 March 1, 2021 Failure to comply with condition of a release order 30 days’ jail, concurrent, probation 12 months 54 March 1, 2021 Assault with a weapon or imitation 160 days’ jail, consecutive, order for DNA, firearms’ prohibition for 99 years, probation 12 months [ 16 ] Let me summarize some of the data from Mr.

Mayo’s criminal record: • Total number of charges: Fifty-four (54) • Break and Entry & Committing an Offence: Eleven (11) • Break, Entry with Intent: Five (5) • Theft: Seven (7) • Possessing Stolen Goods: Two (2) • Breaches of Court Orders: Seventeen (17) [ 17 ] It is immediately apparent that Mr. Mayo has an extensive criminal record that is materially related to the charge I will sentence him for. Of the 54 charges on his record, almost half (or 25) are for property-related offences, in particular, break and entry, as well as theft and possessing stolen goods. It is equally obvious that Mr.

Mayo finds it difficult to follow court orders, whether probation orders, undertakings or recognizances. As well, Mr. Mayo was in jail when I did his sentencing hearing and has 14 other charges for serious criminal offences presently before this Court, for which he awaits trial. [ 18 ] The owners of Pauline’s Place, the business premises in Burin, NL that Mr. Mayo broke into on March 12, 2019, intending to steal from it, chose not to file a Victim Impact Statement for this hearing. The Crown noted that the owner of the business no longer operated it but had sold out to a new owner. However, in its

summary of the facts, the Crown highlighted the severe impact that the damage Mr. Mayo did to the premises had on both the business and the building. [ 19 ] I set it out above in that

summary but repeat it here for its relevance to this part of my judgment: Cst. Barker spoke with Pauline Kirby regarding the damages to the restaurant. By the time the DNA was solved, the restaurant had been sold to new ownership and she was no longer owning it. At the time, she had been out two thousand dollars ($2,000) she said to her personally, they had to replace the cash register, all contents of the freezer were lost, they had to shut down for the day, and then to replace the candy machine and there was money taken from them.

She spoke with Jeff Smith, he said the total cost of material damages to the building was $857.07, the labor was $3,840 in relation to repairing the damage done to the building. [ 20 ] I note that Mr. Mayo caused losses of just under $7,000, between the owner of the business and the owner of the building. He appears to have gone on a rampage through the premises, ripping out walls, turning over and destroying equipment and strewing foodstuffs and other items about the floor. The Crown provided a booklet of photographs the RCMP took at the scene, that depict ruinous damage and disorder.

That said, it is impossible to quantify the traumatic effect on the owners of Pauline’s Place when they saw the damage that Mr. Mayo did to their business and then had to recover from their distress at what happened, to carry on. [ 21 ] There are no factors that mitigate the consequences of this offence for Mr. Mayo, except that he pleaded “guilty” so that the

owner of Pauline’s Place, Pauline Kirby, and the manager of the building, Jeff Smith, did not have to testify at his trial. However, that is cold comfort to them, especially for Ms. Kirby, after waiting 3 years to resolve this matter. [ 22 ] I note as well that the police only identified Mr. Mayo as the person who committed the offence by a fortuitous confluence of circumstances: Mr. Mayo left his DNA at the scene in the copious amounts of blood the police found there; and Cpl. Tulk, showing great intuition, retrieved a cigarette butt from Mr.

Mayo when transporting him from court in a police car on August 19, 2019, so that investigators recovered a matching DNA sample for Mr. Mayo. From that evidence, Mr. Mayo was, to employ the vernacular, “caught red-handed”. [ 23 ] The Crown submitted that 12 months in jail would be an appropriate sentence for this offence, and while Mr. Mayo’s counsel agreed that Mr. Mayo should receive a jail sentence, he thought that 10 months was more fitting. I agree with the Crown, even though I find that it is at the lower end of the range for this offence. I noted earlier from O’Flaherty, J.’s sentencing decision in R. v.

Murphy that “the range of sentences for a break and enter with intent involving a commercial premises is quite broad, and can extend from a starting point of a conditional sentence to a period of incarceration of three years”. [ 24 ] Present here are several factors that have a serious aggravating effect on sentence, placing 12 months in jail near the lower end of the range. They are, in particular, the extreme damage and loss that Mr. Mayo caused to Pauline’s Place and the building that housed it, and Mr. Mayo’s lengthy and related criminal record.

Overall, I defer to Crown counsel’s judgment as to the propriety of 12 months in jail and that is the sentence I impose on Mr. Mayo. Mr. Mayo will serve that sentence consecutively to any other sentences he is currently serving. [ 25 ] I will not order Mr. Mayo to pay restitution to Pauline’s Place or the owner of the building. Quite simply, Mr. Mayo is in jail now and given his troubled background, clearly does not have the means now to pay it; nor is it likely that he will have those means in the foreseeable future. I will order him to pay a victim surcharge. The surcharge is mandatory under

section 737.1 (1) of the Criminal Code , so Mr. Mayo will pay a victim surcharge of $200. [ 26 ] I also make a DNA order, so that the number of samples of bodily substances may be taken from Mr. Mayo that are reasonably required for forensic DNA under s. 487.051 (3) of the Criminal Code . The order is in Form 5.04 of the Criminal Code . Break and entry into any place other than a dwelling house is a secondary designated offence for which this Court may only make an order after taking into account the directive in

section 487.051 (3) of the Criminal Code : In deciding whether to make the order, the court shall consider the person’s criminal record, whether they were previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a designated offence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the impact such an order would have on the person’s privacy and security of the person and shall give reasons for its decision. [ 27 ] In this case, Mr. Mayo’s lengthy and related criminal record, as well as the serious impact Mr.

Mayo caused to the business and building justify this order; and the impact on his privacy and security will be minimal, if at all, given his proclivity to crime, especially break and enter. In fact, the order is completely justifiable, because of what happened here: But for the “fortuitous confluence of circumstances” that it took to identify Mr. Mayo, the police would likely never have been able to connect him to the crime. Given Mr. Mayo’s history of offending, he may well offend in the future and this will enable the police to identify him more easily. [ 28 ] The Crown asks that I place Mr.

Mayo on supervised probation for a 1-year period, following his release from custody. I agree with that request and I order that Mr. Mayo will be bound by a probation order for 1 year from the date he is released from custody for this offence. While on probation, Mr. Mayo will abide by the statutory conditions and report to and be under the supervision of the adult probation officer.

SUMMARY AND DISPOSITION [ 29 ] Bradley Mayo pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a commercial establishment with intent to steal from it. He appeared for sentencing. The Court, with the concurrence of defence counsel, accepted the facts that the Crown offered to support the charge and found Mr. Mayo guilty of the offence. The Crown submitted that Mr. Mayo should be sentenced to 12 months in jail for the offence, because of his serious criminal record and the extensive damage he did to the business. Mr. Mayo’s counsel agreed that Mr.

Mayo’s actions justified a jail sentence but he believed that 10 months in jail was more appropriate. [ 30 ] The Court accepted the Crown’s submission and sentenced Mr. Mayo to 12 months in jail, to be served consecutively to any sentences he is serving now. It also ordered him to be bound by a probation order for 1 year from the date he is released from custody for this offence during which he will abide by the statutory conditions and report to and be under the supervision of the adult probation officer. Additionally, it ordered that Mr.

Mayo provide such samples of his DNA as are required for analysis and finally to pay a victim surcharge of $200. [ 31 ] In the result, I order that: 1. Bradley Mayo serve 12 months in jail for the offence, to be served consecutively to any sentences he is serving now. 2. Bradley Mayo provide the number of samples of bodily substances that are reasonably required for forensic DNA under s. 487.051 (3) of the Criminal Code . The order is in Form 5.04 of the Criminal Code . 3. Bradley Mayo pay a victim surcharge of $200 under

section 737.1 (1) of the Criminal Code . 4. Bradley Mayo will be bound by a probation order for 1 year from the date he is released from custody during which he will abide by the statutory conditions and report to and be under the supervision of the adult probation officer.

_____________________________ Garrett A. Handrigan Justice