Her Majesty the Queen v. John Willis Field SENTENCING DECISION Judge: The Honourable Judge Anne S. Derrick, 2013 NSPC 51

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA R. v. Field, 2013 NSPC 51 Date: June 27, 2013 Docket: 2575466 - 2575468 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. John Willis Field SENTENCING DECISION Judge: The Honourable Judge Anne S.

Derrick Heard: May 31 and June 19, 2013 Oral Decision: June 27, 2013 Charges: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, section 5(2) x 2; section 465(1), Criminal Code of Canada Counsel: Mark Donohue and Jeffrey Moors, for the Crown Patrick MacEwen, for John Field By the Court: Introduction [1] On March 19, 2013, John Field pleaded guilty to three offences: (1) unlawfully having in his possession, for the purposes oftrafficking, cannabis marijuana, in excess of three kilograms, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; (2)unlawfully having in his possession, for the purpose of trafficking, cocaine, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs andSubstances Act; and (3) unlawfully conspiring with named individuals and other unknown persons to commit the indictable offence oftrafficking in cocaine, contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, thereby committing an offence under section465(1) of the Criminal Code. [2] My task is to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr.

Field. Sentencing is a "profoundly subjective process." (R. v. Shropshire, (SCC), [1995] S.C.J. No. 52, paragraph 46) Determining "a just and appropriate sentence is a delicate art" whichrequires the careful balancing of "the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and thecircumstances of the offence ..." (R. v. M. (C.A.), (SCC), [1996] S.C.J. No. 28, paragraph 91) An appropriate sentencecannot be determined in isolation. Regard must be had to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. (R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010SCC 6 , [2010] S.C.J.

No. 6, paragraph 44) It is a "profoundly contextual" process in which the sentencing judge has broaddiscretion. (R. v. L.M., 2008 SCC 31 , [2008] S.C.J. No. 31,paragraph 15) That discretion is structured of course, by how thevarious sentencing objectives are to be weighted for certain offences. [3] Notwithstanding the requirement to tailor sentences to the specific offender, courts have been consistent in emphasizingdenunciation and deterrence in sentencing for drug trafficking offences with Parliament prescribing life imprisonment as the maximumpenalty for possession for the purpose of trafficking

Schedule I and

Schedule II drugs. Cocaine is a

Schedule I drug; cannabis marijuanais a

Schedule II drug. [4] The Crown is seeking a global sentence of seven years. Mr. Field raises the issue of totality as any sentence I order will beconsecutive to a 30 month sentence he is already serving for similar offences committed in 2010. He has urged me to impose a sentenceof no more than 3.5 years, taking totality into account. Through his counsel, Mr. Field has submitted that, but for totality, a 4.5 yearglobal sentence would be appropriate for the offences before me. Purpose and Principles of Sentencing [5] In sentencing Mr. Field I am guided by the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances

Act .

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the objectives a sentence must achieve: denunciation, deterrence – both specific and general, separation from society where necessary, rehabilitation of the offender, reparations by the offender, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 6 ] Assessing moral culpability is a fundamental aspect of determining the appropriate sentence: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. (

section 718.1, Criminal Code ) I must also consider any aggravating or mitigating factors, and the principles of parity and totality. (

section 718.2, Criminal Code ) [ 7 ] The sentencing provisions of the CDSA articulate similar principles to those found in the Criminal Code , indicating that the fundamental purpose of a sentence for drug offences is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging in appropriate circumstances the rehabilitation and treatment of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community. (

section 10, CDSA ) Background Facts [ 8 ] As noted earlier, I am sentencing Mr. Field for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cannabis marijuana and cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. He committed these offences between June 30 and October 11, 2011 and was arrested on October 11, 2011. [ 9 ] During June through October 2011, when the conspiracy and trafficking were occurring, Mr. Field was on release conditions for possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana and cocaine, offences that occurred in March 2010. A search warrant executed at Mr.

Field’s home on March 20, 2010 located 150 grams of marijuana and 3.14 grams of cocaine and ephedrine, along with a quantity of cash and other indicia of trafficking. ( Defence Brief, page 3 ) On October 25, 2011, Mr. Field pleaded guilty to the March charges and received a 30 month sentence, jointly recommended. [ 10 ] I will later discuss the significance of these earlier convictions and the sentence for them.

In brief I will make two points: (1) as these convictions post-dated his current offences, they do not constitute a prior record, and are therefore not to be treated as an aggravating factor under section 10(2)(

b) of the CDSA ; and (2) the 30 month sentence Mr. Field received is what makes the totality principle relevant to this sentencing. Mr. Field’s Sentencing Hearing [ 11 ] With the Crown’s consent, Mr. Field entered his guilty pleas and attended his sentencing hearing by video link. ( sections 606(5) and 650(1.1) , Criminal Code ; R. v. Monger, [2007] N.J. No. 447 (P.C.) ; R. v. Young, [2003] B.C.J.

No, 2220 (S.C.) ) He has been serving his 30 month sentence in the Westmoreland penitentiary in New Brunswick and was enrolled, until very recently, in courses he would have missed out on if he had been required to appear personally for these proceedings. That would have been undesirable. The video link option worked very effectively and there has been no detriment to the public interest by proceeding in this fashion. Pre-Sentence Report dated May 8, 2013 [ 12 ] Mr. Field’s involvement in drug offences is explained by financial difficulties.

His lack of education and employable skills marginalized him economically and placed a strain on his family’s ability to meet financial obligations. He was not trafficking drugs because of an addiction problem. [ 13 ] Mr. Field is 38 years old. He grew up in a loving family of limited means. At the age of 18 he moved in with Angela Schorden. They later married and had two children. Those children are now 13 and 10. [ 14 ] Prior to being sent to prison, Mr. Field had only completed Grade 9. His limited education meant limited employment opportunities and minimum wage.

From 1999 until being sentenced in October 2011, Mr. Field was self-employed, working in lawn care, snow removal, and vending machines. He believed self-employment was his best option. In his pre-sentence report interview he acknowledged that he sold drugs for several years to supplement his income, turning “to what he knew when finances became unmanageable.” ( Pre- sentence Report, page 6 ) [ 15 ] Mr. Field’s financial circumstances suffered as the result of the chronic health problems of one of his children. Mr.

Field often missed work due to his son’s illnesses, acting as the main care provider while his wife was at her full-time job. Mr. Field told the author of the pre-sentence report that he and his wife took out bank loans and re-mortgaged their home to try and satisfy their financial commitments. The effect was increased debt and more bills that they were unable to pay. [ 16 ] Mr. Field dealt with his poor financial situation by making a life-changing choice: he immersed himself in drug trafficking. It has been a choice with very painful consequences: Mr. Field is now separated from his children.

His marriage has ended. He is suffering depression over the breakdown of his marriage and the effects of his incarceration on his children. [ 17 ] Before he went to prison, Mr. Field had played an active role as a father and family man. He spent his spare time with his family and took a keen interest in his children’s extra-curricular activities. ( Pre-sentence Report, page 5 ) [ 18 ] Mr. Field takes full responsibility for his offences and has not tried to minimize or justify his actions. He expressed remorse in his pre-sentence report interview and acknowledged his poor choices.

He has been making constructive use of his time in prison. He plans to make a fresh start when he is released and find a legitimate job. [ 19 ] In furthering his objectives, Mr. Field has just completed his GED exams. He intends to use his GED to apply for further programming in prison. He has already completed courses offered through the New Brunswick Community College, receiving four certificates for drywall installation and another for carpentry. The Facts of the Drug Trafficking and Conspiracy to Traffic

[20] The nature and extent of Mr. Field’s involvement in trafficking cocaine and marijuana is revealed in the communications thatwere intercepted by police. Coded language was used to describe drugs and prices. Mr. Field primarily dealt with a distributor who thensold the drugs to purchasers for personal use and further sale. Customers would call the distributor looking for drugs and he wouldcontact his supplier, Mr. Field. [21] Mr. Field knew better than store his drug inventory in his own home. He used the St. Margaret’s Bay Road apartment of a co-accused as a “stash house.” When Mr.

Field was arrested, a key to the apartment was seized from him. [22] The intercepted calls relied on by the Crown to establish Mr. Field’s drug trafficking activities span the period of July 7, 2011 toMr. Field’s arrest on October 11, 2011. Mr. Field’s drug business kept him busy: the Crown described 29 dates between July 7 andSeptember 23 on which Mr. Field was engaged in conversations about drug transactions, usually with his distributor. Communications inthis vein continued up until Mr. Field was arrested. Police surveillance also observed Mr.

Field at the stash house and other locationsindicated by the intercepted calls. The Crown referred to one occasion when Mr. Field dealt directly with one of the distributor’s clientsbecause the distributor had injured himself. [23] On October 11, 2011 the police searched the stash house. In a closet they found 4.995 kilograms of cannabis marijuana. A safe in alocked closet held 1.404 kilograms of powder cocaine, packaged in various amounts. Two additional bags contained a total of 147 gramsof crack cocaine.

Paraphernalia associated with drug trafficking was also seized: 10 separate bags containing cocaine residue, a hydraulicpress, cutting agents, 3 digital scales, baking soda, plastic baggies, vinegar, glass pots with cocaine residue, and a score sheet. Whenarrested, Mr. Field had approximately $4000 on him. Mr. Field and the Fifield Categories [24] A necessary step in sentencing for drug offences is the accurate characterization of the degree of the offender’s culpability asreflected by “the type and amount of drug involved and the level of involvement in the drug business…” (R. v.

Knickle, 2009 NSCA 59, [2009] N.S.J. No. 245, paragraph 17) The classic framework in R. v. Fifield, [1978] N.S.J. No. 42 (S.C.), continues torepresent good law; using the Fifield language, it seems to me Mr. Field was either a “large retailer or small wholesaler.” The Crown hasdescribed Mr. Field as “a large scale commercial dealer” or even “a low end wholesale dealer.” [25] I do not have any evidence to assist me in differentiating between a “wholesale dealer” and a “large scale commercial dealer”.Someone higher up in the drug chain had to have been wholesaling to Mr. Field. Notwithstanding this, Mr.

Field was involved in the saleof significant amounts of drugs. On the facts of this case, I find that whether Mr.

Field is characterized as a large retailer or a smallwholesaler, his culpability is the same and it is significant. [26] The Court in Fifield observed that the activities of wholesalers and large retailers warrant "materially larger sentences" than thoseimposed on petty retailers, noting the release on the market of large quantities of drugs by more significant drug dealers "clearly widenthe use of a prohibited drug to many other persons." (Fifield, paragraph 9) Aggravating Factors [27] The aggravating factors in Mr.

Field’s case are a prior, related record from December 2005 of possession for the purpose oftrafficking in cannabis marijuana (section 10(2)(b), CDSA) and the fact that he was on release conditions during June to October, 2011while he was trafficking and conspiring to traffic in cannabis marijuana and cocaine. [28] Mr. Field was sentenced on December 12, 2005 to a sixteen month conditional sentence for the possession for the purpose oftrafficking charge that had been committed on June 30, 2004. He also received one day, time served, for simple possession of cannabismarijuana arising from the same date.

Mitigating Factors [29] There are a number of mitigating factors to be taken into account. Mr. Field pleaded guilty well before any preliminary inquiry ortrial. He has not minimized his responsibility and has expressed what I find to be genuine remorse. He has paid a heavy price in terms ofconsequences for himself and his family. He is taking concrete steps to rehabilitate himself while in prison. He has been charge-free andhas had clean drug tests. Speaking at his sentencing, he says he has matured and just wants to come out of prison “a better person”. Financial Difficulties [30] Mr.

Field’s financial problems and his struggles to stay on top of his indebtedness do not mitigate the seriousness of his drugtrafficking. (R. v. Smith, 1992 NSCA 73 , [1992] N.S.J. No. 365 (C.A.); R. v. Collette, [1999] N.S.J. No. 190 (C.A.), paragraph13) However, they provide a context for his choices and lead me to conclude that it would be inaccurate to describe his financialmotivation as greed. Greed involves excessiveness, and I have no evidence that Mr. Field’s drug trafficking augmented an alreadycomfortable lifestyle. (R. v. Tokic, [2002] N.S.J. No. 80(S.C.), paragraph 13) Whatever profit Mr.

Field realized from his crimes did notpull him out of his financial hole. Mr. Field reported in his pre-sentence report interview that his wife is in the process of selling thefamily home and filing for bankruptcy. (Pre-sentence Report, page 6) He obviously had not salted away his trafficking proceeds. The Moral Culpability of the Commercial Trafficker [31] The moral culpability of the financially strapped drug-trafficker is not much different however from the drug trafficker whoseentrepreneurship bankrolls a lavish lifestyle. The harm inflicted on the community and addicts is the same.

The financially-motivateddrug trafficker bears responsibility for maintaining or even worsening, the addictions of the purchasers further down the drug chain.Drug addiction inflicts all manner of harms on addicts, their families and friends, and communities. [32] There is a specific example that emerges from the investigation that led to Mr. Field’s arrest, an example I am familiar with as aresult of an earlier sentencing I did. One of the downstream consumers of Mr. Field’s product was Susanne Davidson. Ms. Davidson

developed a cocaine addiction. She both sold and used the cocaine she purchased from the distributor. She was picked up on theintercepts and ultimately arrested following a traffic accident that led to a search of her vehicle. After pleading guilty to possession ofcocaine for the purpose of trafficking, she received a two year federal penitentiary sentence as a result of a joint recommendation. LikeMr. Field she is now an incarcerated parent. There is a direct link between Mr. Field and what happened to Ms. Davidson. The cocaineMr.

Field supplied to the distributor fueled her addiction and her involvement in the drug trade. One of the prices she paid for this was aprison sentence. And when parents become involved with the drug trade, their children pay a steep price as well. [33] The legacy of cocaine trafficking is addiction, parasitic crime, and violence. (R. v. Bonin, [2008] N.S.J. No. 208 (S.C.), paragraph12) Although there is no evidence of any violence used or condoned by Mr. Field, even the non-violent cocaine trafficker sows muchmisery and devastation.

Emphasizing Denunciation and Deterrence [34] The Crown correctly points out that Mr. Field’s sentence must emphasize denunciation and deterrence. This is a case wherespecific deterrence is a relevant consideration. Mr. Field, while on release for very similar offences, carried on an active drug business,possessing and selling significant quantities of cocaine over the three months he was intercepted and surveilled. And, in addition todeterring him, the Crown wants Mr.

Field’s sentence to send a message to others who might be similarly inclined to resort to drug-dealing for profit. [35] In the Crown’s submission a sufficiently denunciatory and deterrent sentence for Mr. Field is 7 years, to be served consecutively tothe 30 month sentence he received in October 2011. This is considerably higher than the sentence imposed in R. v. Butt, 2010 NSCA 56, [2010] N.S.J. No. 346 (C.A.) although Mr. Butt was sentenced on the basis of a more limited involvement in the drug business.Mr.

Butt was charged as a middleman after authorities intercepted a package that had been sent from British Columbia to his address.The package contained two one-kilogram bricks of cocaine of significant purity. A search warrant executed at Mr. Butt’s home locatedan additional 196 grams of powdered cocaine, two similar empty packages from British Columbia, packaging, and a safe. Unrepresentedat his sentencing, Mr. Butt claimed to be a simple drop-box and not otherwise involved in the distribution of the drugs.

The 3.5 yearsentence he received, once certain mitigating factors had been taken into account was upped to 5 years on appeal. The original sentencewas described as “manifestly below the appropriate range for an offender operating at this level of the drug trade.” (Butt, paragraph 14) [36] Significantly, in my opinion, Mr. Butt’s sentence was increased after the Court of Appeal identified that Mr.

Butt’s claims inmitigation – that he had reformed since being charged and that he had serious health issues – were found to be untrue. (Butt, paragraph14) Therefore, when the Court emphasized specific and general deterrence, referring to the substantial amount of drugs, the fact that thedrug involved was cocaine, and Mr. Butt’s lengthy prior record that included a drug conviction, there were no off-setting mitigatoryfactors. This is not the case with respect to Mr. Field. [37] The 10.5 years imposed in R. v. Bonin, [2008] N.S.J. No. 208 (S.C.), a jointly recommended sentence, reflected Mr.

Bonin’s king-pin status, the fact that he as “at the top of the pyramid…”, the “brains” behind a 24/7 “dial-a-dope” operation. (Bonin, paragraph 14)Mr. Bonin’s offences were conspiracy to traffic and possession for the purpose of trafficking in crack cocaine. The sentencing judgeexpressed little optimism for Mr. Bonin’s rehabilitation, noting his six prior convictions for drug offences. Mr. Bonin received doublecredit for three years on remand, leaving a “go forward” sentence of 4.5 years. [38] In R. v. Jones, 2007 NSSC 309 , [2007] N.S.J. No. 428 (S.C.), Mr.

Jones received a sentence of six years for conspiracy totraffic and possession for the purpose of trafficking in crack cocaine as the middleman in the Bonin “dial-a-dope” scheme (Jones,paragraph 21) It was noted that Mr. Jones had a very lengthy, unbroken criminal record with four prior drug convictions. [39] Playing a principal role in the drug-trafficking chain, trafficking in cocaine, and having a significant prior record for drug offences,are key factors that increase the sentences imposed in the more serious drug cases. In the investigation that led to Mr.

Field’s arrest,other offenders lower down on the drug-trafficking ladder, received federal prison terms of 24 months (Susanne Davidson) and 42months (Ryan MacInnis). Mr. MacInnis was the subject of a police search that netted 37.66 grams of cocaine and some marijuana. TheCrown submits that parity requires a substantially higher sentence for Mr. Field. [40] Susanne Davidson and Mr. MacInnis acquired their cocaine from a middleman. Mr. Field was not a middleman. His role is morecomparable to Mr. Bonin’s although he does not seem to have operated a 24/7 drug trade as Mr. Bonin did. The Crown sought todistinguish Mr.

Bonin’s drug business as a “lower level retail operation”, but I am unable to see how it perpetrated any less harm thanMr. Field’s. Mr. Field’s circumstances also distinguish him. He does not have a long criminal record or numerous convictions for drugoffences. He has no record for violence. Rehabilitation has not been just talk: he has been bettering himself during his current sentence,his first period of actual incarceration. It is rational to have optimism for Mr. Field’s successful reintegration into society as arehabilitated man. [41] Sentencing is not an exact science.

This is not an exercise in generating a precise number from a mathematical formula. SentencingMr. Field is far more nuanced than that. In Mr. Field’s case, given all the factors I have had to weigh, and the principles of sentencingthat must be applied, notably denunciation and deterrence, it is my view that a fit sentence is 6 years. A six year sentence is a verysubstantial sentence reflecting Mr. Field’s culpability and the aggravating factors in his case. [42] However, this is not the end of my task. I cannot conclude Mr. Field’s sentencing until I have considered the principle of totality.

Totality [43] Totality is a significant component of the “foundational principle” of proportionality. Proportionality, which requires that thedegree of punishment reflect the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender, is fundamental to society havingconfidence in the law and the fairness and rationality of the legal system. (R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339 , [2012] O.J. No.2255 (C.A.), paragraph 15) [44] The principle of totality finds statutory expression in

section 718.2 (

c) of the Criminal Code:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. [45] Application of the totality principle requires that “a combined sentence must not be unduly long or harsh in the sense that its impactsimply exceeds the gravity of the offences in question or the overall culpability of the offender.” (Johnson, paragraph 18) Before finallyimposing a new and consecutive sentence on an offender presently serving a sentence, the judge must determine, …how much weight to give to the existing remaining sentence by assessing whether the length of the proposed sentence plus theexisting sentence will result in a “just and appropriate” disposition that reflects as aptly as possible the relevant principles and goals ofsentencing in the circumstances. (Johnson, paragraph 25) [46] Where consecutive sentences are “…unduly harsh and excessive, the overall length of incarceration may work against theattainment of the various goals of sentencing…”, including the goals of rehabilitation and reintegration. (Johnson, paragraph 20) Thatbeing said, the integrity of the sentencing regime must also be considered so that an offender is not seen “to be reaping the benefits fromhis previous serious criminal misconduct.” (Johnson, paragraph 23) [47] Crown and Defence are in agreement that totality is relevant to sentencing Mr.

Field because this sentence will be consecutive tothe 30 month sentence he received for his 2010 offences. (Johnson, paragraph 19; R. v. LeBlanc, 2011 NSSC 412 , [2011]N.S.J. No. 600 (S.C.), paragraph 73) In the Crown’s submission, totality warrants consideration, but it should not have any traction. Itshould be acknowledged but not applied. The extent of Mr. Field’s culpability, the multiple instances of trafficking, and the fact that hewas released on bail in relation to charges for earlier drug offences, leads the Crown to maintain its position that notwithstanding totality,Mr.

Field should receive a 7 year sentence. The Crown recognizes this will give Mr. Field a total sentence of 9.5 years as the 7 yearswill be consecutive to the 2.5 years Mr. Field is serving now. Mr. Donohue, for the Crown, fairly describes 9.5 years as a long sentence. [48] Needless to say, Mr. Field sees his situation very differently. He notes that he took responsibility for his March 2010 offenceswithout waiting to deal with the current charges. He pleaded guilty to the March 2010 offences very soon after being arrested on October11, 2011 for the 2011 offences. Mr.

Field says had he dealt with all of his charges together, it is unlikely he would have received a 9.5year sentence. In his submission, a 9.5 year sentence is a crushing sentence that risks extinguishing his hopes for a successful return tothe community and his family. [49] Mr. Field has to be sentenced on the basis of his specific circumstances and culpability. The fact that he took responsibility for hisearlier offences and did not draw out dealing with them should be seen as positive choice. Guilty people should be encouraged to admittheir responsibility and resolve their charges.

And although denunciation and deterrence must be foregrounded, it would be a mistake todisregard the real prospects for Mr. Field’s rehabilitation. It is Mr.

Field who is breathing life into these prospects, equipping himselfwith marketable skills, so that he will not again “turn to what he knew” (Pre-sentence Report, page 6) to support himself and his family.This is not a case of an offender who has failed to engage in rehabilitating himself, a situation which could make the effects of a longsentence and therefore the totality assessment, less relevant. [50] I am satisfied that totality should be accorded a role in Mr. Field’s sentencing. I do not see this as a situation where taking a last,hard look at Mr.

Field’s sentence and applying the principle of totality undermines the integrity of the sentencing regime. The sentence Iimpose must not be unduly long or harsh. A sentence of the 6 years I referred to earlier consecutive to the 2.5 years Mr. Field is serving,for a total of 8.5 years, would be just that. It is approaching the sentence imposed on Mr. Bonin who had a more significant and seriousrecord, including for drug offences, and was seen as a poor candidate for rehabilitation. It would constitute a crushing sentence,potentially robbing Mr.

Field of the opportunity and motivation to continue his rehabilitative efforts. Mr. Field’s Sentence [51] The ultimate objective of sentencing is protection of the public and furtherance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. That is bestachieved by the rehabilitation of the offender. An 8.5 year sentence for Mr. Field is an excessive sentence, with the real potential tojeopardize Mr. Field’s rehabilitation, his hopes for a fresh start, and his ability to successfully reintegrate into society. I find the fitsentence for Mr.

Field for the October 2011 offences is 5 years, not six, once the principle of totality is applied. With the 2.5 years he isserving now, this represents a total sentence of 7.5 years, a very substantial punishment. This sentence sends an emphatic message ofdenunciation and serves the objectives of specific and general deterrence. [52] The sentence Mr. Field would have received of six years, but for the application of totality, is significantly higher than thesentences of Ms. Davidson and Mr.

MacInnis who had lesser roles in the drug trafficking conspiracy. [53] In view of the application of the totality principle in this case, I am not crediting Mr. Field for any remand time from October 11,2011 when he was arrested to October 25, 2011 when he was previously sentenced. [54] I am sentencing Mr. Field to 5 years on the conspiracy charge and 5 years concurrent on the charge of possession for the purposeof trafficking in cocaine, and 4 years concurrent for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cannabis marijuana in excess of threekilograms. [55] I will sign the necessary ancillary orders.