Her Majesty the Queen v. Robert Charles Odo DECISION ON SENTENCING Judge: The Honourable Judge Del W. Atwood, 2014 NSPC 53

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v . Odo , 2014 NSPC 53 Date: 2014-07-23 Docket: 2608462 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Robert Charles Odo DECISION ON SENTENCING Judge: The Honourable Judge Del W. Atwood Heard: 23 July 2014, in Pictou, Nova Scotia Charge: Para. 348(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code Counsel: Patrick Young for the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service Hector MacIsaac for Robert Charles Odo By the Court: [ 1 ] The court has for sentencing Mr. Robert Charles Odo. Mr. Odo is before the court in relation to a charge of break and enter into a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence. It is a straight indictable offence. Mr.

Odo elected initially to have his trial in this court, pleaded not guilty, but then entered a change of plea to guilty last April. [ 2 ] The mitigating factors are, first, the change of plea which the court accepts as an authentic expression of remorse by Mr. Odo. Secondly, Mr. Odo is employed. Eventually, he was co-operative with the police. [ 3 ] Mr. Odo does have a prior record for property-related offences, including a conviction for a s. 430 offence in 2009; one prior conviction for a theft offence in 2006; and another s. 430 offence in 2008. I note that Mr.

Odo has been before the court, as well, for breaches of undertaking; possession of a controlled substance; breach of probation and assault causing bodily harm. He has no prior findings of guilt for break-and-enter-related offences, and I find that to be a positive or mitigating factor. [ 4 ] The main aggravating circumstance here is that Mr. Odo entered into somebody else’s home. It might not have been occupied at the time, but it was clearly being maintained by a family member of the homeowners’ while they were away, and was being very well maintained from what I observed of the scene photography, Exhibit #1.

It is a typical bungalow-style dwelling which I understand is out in MacPherson’s Mills. [ 5 ] Society places a high value on the sanctity and security of the home; courts in this country have stated consistently that sentences imposed for break-and-enter offences involving dwellings ought to reflect that principle. As recently as 2010 in R. v. Adams , Bateman J.A. stated that the benchmark sentence for any break and enter ought to be three years.

In certain circumstances, the starting point might go as low as two years if the court were to be satisfied that the offender could be classified as a reasonable candidate for a rehabilitative sentence without a significant prior record. [1] [ 6 ] The other aggravating factor here is that Mr. Odo was clearly motivated by an intention steal. I don’t believe that Mr. Odo went into that home with a view to sightseeing. Mr. Odo stated himself: “So I went in there. I popped the thing off to see if there was anything in there”.

He told police that he broke the lock off of the shed looking for something to help fix his car. In my view, the motive was essentially theft. I don’t draw any inferences with respect to the broken window. The broken window certainly does appear to be a suspicious circumstance; however, the Crown has very fairly not sought to prove that as an aggravating factor, and I disregard it.

[ 7 ] There is a joint submission before the court. Although at the low end, I am not satisfied that the joint recommendation would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is in line with the range of sentence in Adams , supra ; therefore, the court will put into effect the joint recommendation. [ 8 ] The court will order a primary-designated-offence DNA collection order in relation to the 348(1)(

a) count. [ 9 ] I do find, Mr. Odo, that you have the ability to pay a victim surcharge amount. I believe that a victim surcharge amount in excess of the mandatory minimum would be appropriate here. The court is going to order the payment of a $300 victim surcharge amount to be paid within 36 months. [ 10 ] The court is going to order and direct that you be imprisoned in a federal institution for a period of two years plus a day. The warrant of committal is to be endorsed in accordance with the provisions of

Section 743.21 of the Criminal Code : While in custody, Mr. Odo is to have no contact or communication with Carol Lorraine Fraser or any members of her family. [ 11 ] Anything further in relation to Mr. Odo, counsel? [ 12 ] Mr. Young : No, Your Honour. [ 13 ] Mr. MacIsaac : No, Your Honour. [ 14 ] The Court : Mr. Odo, I’ll have you go with the sheriffs, please, sir. Thank you very much. Atwood, JPC