R. v. A.A.H.N. Date:, 2013 BCPC 425

Citation: R. v. A.A.H.N. Date: 20130809 2013 BCPC 0425 File Nos: 57871-3-C; 57871-4-A Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. A.A.H.N. ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. CHALLENGER Counsel for the Crown: K. Bryson Counsel for the Defendant: M. Smith Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: August 9, 2013 Date of Judgment: August 9, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT: A.N. pled guilty to one count of sexual touching, contrary to s. 151 of the Code , involving two victims: S.L., being a person under 14 years, and S.B., a person being under 16 years of age. [ 2 ] The offences occurred between January 2007 and December 31, 2008, on a small reserve of the Squamish Nation in the Squamish area. Many of the people residing on this reserve are family members and all are closely connected. [ 3 ] Pursuant to s. 725(1)(c), the facts underlying a further count were before the court as part of the circumstances.

That incident involved a third complainant, K.B., whose age at the time of the offence was submitted to be 15, although the count itself alleges she was under age 14. [ 4 ] The matter proceeded by indictment. The plea was entered on the trial date and sentence was then adjourned for preparation of a presentence report with a Gladue component. [ 5 ] The offender also pled guilty to a charge of breaching a term of his release between April 3 and 5, 2013, by failing to advise his supervisor of a change of address.

He had reported that he was living at a shelter, when in fact he was staying at the home of a friend. [ 6 ] S.B. was 15 at the time of the offence. She attended a party at a house on the reserve at which she over-consumed alcohol during the course of the evening. At some point, her boyfriend left her at the house to go to a concert. She later passed out on a couch in the basement. As she was sleeping, she felt a hand come across her body and go into her pants and fondle her genitals. It was the offender, but at the time she assumed it was her boyfriend. She pushed the hand away.

This was repeated, and she again pushed his hand away. The offender then attempted to unbuckle her belt. She turned around and realized it was not her boyfriend, but the offender. She immediately got up and ran away. She was fearful, as she was not familiar with the occupants of the home and did not know where her boyfriend was. She did not report the incident for some time, because she felt she was responsible, as a result of drinking to the point where she passed out. [ 7 ] S.L. was nine years old at the time of the incident.

The offender was someone she considered to be her family and she had known him her entire life. The victim often stayed with her grandmother, who lived a few houses away from the offender, and the offender often visited her grandmother's house. [ 8 ] The day of the incident, the victim was sleeping on the couch. She heard the offender enter the home and visit with her grandmother and another relative. She then heard him approach her as she lay dozing. He put his fingers on her labia, over her yoga pants, and rubbed her genital area for what she believed was a couple of minutes.

He left and she got up and went to the window and saw him leaving the front of the house. [ 9 ] K.B. was 15 years of age. She is a first cousin to the offender. She went to a house party where she over-consumed alcohol. She awoke in the offender's bed. She was alone. Her breasts were exposed and her left nipple was painful and she noted a bite mark on it. Her pants were down and a used condom was between her upper thighs. She got up and left the bedroom. She was upset, and when she encountered the offender, he apologized for what he had done.

Another member punched him in the face with sufficient force to break his jaw. [ 10 ] All three of the victims have filed impact statements that speak to the ongoing emotional pain, fear, anger, and shame they experienced as a result of being sexually interfered with by the offender.

The statements speak to the deep and indelible impact the offences have had on their self-esteem and sense of security. [ 11 ] S.L. and K.B. have had to endure encountering him in close family or social situations for many years and have perceived that he did not take responsibility for his actions nor feel any remorse. [ 12 ] The victim impact statements also speak to the broader negative impact this has had in the community, and that until he entered his guilty plea, the victims were treated with suspicion and were blamed. [ 13 ] The offender did not enter a guilty plea until the first day of trial.

The victims did not have to testify, but did have to proceed through preparation for trial and the anticipation of having to speak in public about the events and face cross-examination. [ 14 ] A presentence report with a Gladue component was prepared. The offender was 20 or 21 at the time of the offences. He is now 26. He has no criminal history. Due to his abuse of substances, he has little recollection of the events. He does not remember his jaw being broken, although it continues to cause him discomfort. He does not understand why he committed these offences. [ 15 ] He lived on the reserve until he was four.

His mother remarried and moved off reserve. He developed a close relationship with his stepfather, who committed suicide when he was 10 years old. He continues to grieve this loss. His mother then moved the family back to the reserve. [ 16 ] Over his life, the offender has been culturally active in fishing, drum-making, and weaving. [ 17 ] He has been in custody since April 10, 2013, a period of four months to date. While in custody, he has been participating in cultural activities and events and making a mask and weaving.

He is sufficiently committed to the programming he is participating in that he asked for the imposition of sentence to be postponed until he had completed a program with the elders and other rehabilitative modules at the remand centre. [ 18 ] There is no information in the presentence report which speaks to this offender's family history in the context of the Gladue factors. Aside from the identification of First Nations residential treatment and recovery facilities, there is little in the report about community-based resources, programs, or culturally-sensitive options for reparation, restoration, or healing.

[ 19 ] Through counsel, the offender provided information that his father and maternal grandfather had been in residential school. His grandfather refused to speak his own language as a result, and would not talk about his experience there. [ 20 ] Although the offender denied having been sexually abused in the presentence report interview, he admitted to the police he had been abused earlier in his life. His adult relationships have been with age-appropriate females. He has never married and has no children. [ 21 ] He is not welcome back on the reserve at this time.

Crown counsel submitted that there is a prospect for long-term reintegration back into the community. [ 22 ] His mother is caring for her own small child and grandchildren and cannot have him back in her home. He will have to access band services at the North Vancouver band office upon his release. [ 23 ] He has an aunt in Port Coquitlam who is also supportive and knowledgeable about accessing resources. His family believes that his offending is due to substance abuse. [ 24 ] The offender attended high school at the native school in Squamish but did not graduate.

He has taken one year of carpentry training and hopes to obtain his GED and become a heavy-equipment operator. He has been employed as a roofer and doing general labour as landscaper and collecting firewood. He is in good health, aside from some depression since the time the charges were laid. [ 25 ] He has been abusing substances since he was in his mid-teens. At the time of the offences, he was abusing hard street drugs and alcohol. He now consumes alcohol on occasion and marihuana. [ 26 ] The offender accepts responsibility for his conduct and is remorseful.

He has never denied the accounts of the offences given by the victims. He is willing to participate in any programming he is directed to take. [ 27 ] The minimum sentence for the sexual interference offences was 45 days at the time of the commission of these offences. The maximum is 10 years. The Crown submits that a sentence of six to 18 months is appropriate with three years' probation to follow. They are also asking for a s. 161 prohibition, a DNA sample, a firearms prohibition, and that the accused be subject to the Sex Offender Information Registry for 10 years.

The offender submits that a sentence at the low end as suggested by Crown is appropriate, and does not take issue with the term of probation or the other ancillary orders sought. [ 28 ] The aggravating factors are the nature of the offences, the age of the victims, and that there is a pattern of offending. These offences are to be considered aggravated by virtue of s. 718.2(a)(ii.1).

In particular, S.L. trusted him as an older family member who she should have been able to rely on for protection and support. [ 29 ] The mitigating factors are that the offender has no criminal history, is remorseful, accepts responsibility, and is open to counselling and treatment. [ 30 ] Counsel for the Crown provided the court with several authorities. I will first refer to R. v. K.L.L. , 2012 BCPC 273 , a decision of this court dealing with a similar offender from the same reserve and similar offence.

I adopt here the following comments: [31] It is now widely accepted that the negative effects of sexual interference and assaults on the victims is profound. Those around the victim are also damaged. They feel responsible. They feel they should have known. They feel they failed in their duty to protect the victim. In many cases where the offence is committed by a family member or close friend, the damage radiates out like rings from a stone dropped in a pond. However, the damage does not simply fade away. It is insidious and often leaves scars and for some, wounds that never completely heal; see R. v.

J.L.C., 2012 BCSC 623 . [32] There is no question in my mind but that sexual interference with children and sexual assault of adults serves to perpetuate the cycle of alcohol and substance abuse, attachment issues, low self-esteem, lack of personal and sexual boundaries and violence which continue to afflict our First Nations people. Indeed, these are the areas of concern identified in the psychological report prepared in this matter. Those who are sexually abused are more likely to have emotional issues which cause them to turn to alcohol and other substances to cope with their pain.

Those who abuse alcohol and substances are more likely to act out their pain by abusing others. [33] R. v. Gladue and, more recently, R. v. Ipeelee , 2012 SCC 13 , provide guidance to the court when sentencing First Nations offenders. The incidence of over-representation of Native people in our jails continues. [34] It is the responsibility of courts such as this to ensure that all possible alternatives to incarceration are considered and that rehabilitation, reintegration, restoration and reparation are given weight.

We are tasked with collecting information about the specific community and the resources available for any potential community-based disposition which may be appropriate and which will incorporate First Nations cultural values and perspectives. [35] The Pre-Sentence Report in this matter is not a thorough Gladue report. It is typical of the reports this court receives when such a report is requested. Frankly, it is of concern that so little is done by Community Corrections to assist the court in its responsibilities as set out by s. 718(2)(

e) of the Code and the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue , Wells , and Ipeelee .

[36] It sets out a very brief history of the Squamish Nation and provides little information as to the resources available. It makes reference to the "Long House", which is a sacred and spiritual program which promotes cultural practices as well as abstinence and health, but does not provide any information as to whether this program could be accessed by this accused as part of the restorative aspect of any sentence imposed.

It does not address the resources available in the Squamish Nation as a whole and does not address any First Nations resources available outside the Squamish Nation. [37] The court is aware that there is a committee of elders in Squamish who deal with extrajudicial sanctions and incorporate a restorative approach based on cultural values. I was advised by the local integrated police squad officer that they are not equipped to deal with offenders serving sentences for sexually interfering with children.

I am left with only my general knowledge of the resources available locally and from the Pre-Sentence Report that there are "talking circles" and substance abuse counselling which also provides referrals for First Nations treatment centres. [38] Defence counsel is also well-versed in the resources available, but through no fault of his own was unable to provide the court with any alternatives except those I have referred to above. [39] I agree that attending a residential alcohol and drug treatment or recovery program and participating in sex offender treatment are important for the long-term protection of the public and the specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and reintegration of this offender into society at large. [40] What the court has not been given is a plan for cleansing or healing or a meaningful and culturally sensitive path for these First Nations people to take to restore peace to their extended family and community.

They need to come to the point where they can forgive this offender and feel safe again with him which might then allow him to return to them. The offender needs to stand before his community without shame and accept responsibility. He must prove to them that he will not cause any more damage. He must accept the teachings of his elders and pursue a spiritual life. He must make reparations. . . . [42] The case law makes clear that when dealing with offences involving the sexual exploitation of children, the court must bear in mind the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

These concepts were addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. M.C.A. , 1 S.C.R. 500, at paragraphs 79 to 81 : 79 Retribution, as an objective of sentencing, represents nothing less than the hallowed principle that criminal punishment, in addition to advancing utilitarian considerations related to deterrence and rehabilitation, should also be imposed to sanction the moral culpability of the offender.

In my view, retribution is integrally woven into the existing principles of sentencing in Canadian law through the fundamental requirement that a sentence imposed [must] be "just and appropriate" under the circumstances. Indeed, it is my profound belief that retribution represents an important unifying principle of our penal law by offering an essential conceptual link between the attribution of criminal liability and the imposition of criminal sanctions.

With regard to the attribution of criminal liability, I have repeatedly held that it is a principle of "fundamental justice" under s. 7 of the Charter that criminal liability may only be imposed if an accused possesses a minimum "culpable mental state" in respect of the ingredients of the alleged offence. See Martineau [cite following] ... See, similarly, Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act [cite following, and] ... R. v. Vaillancourt [cite following] ...

It is this mental state which gives rise to the "moral blameworthiness" which justifies the state in imposing the stigma and punishment associated with a criminal sentence. See Martineau ... I submit that it is this same element of "moral blameworthiness" which animates the determination of the appropriate quantum of punishment for a convicted offender as a "just sanction".

As I noted in Martineau in discussing the sentencing scheme for manslaughter under the Code , it is a recognized principle of our justice system that "punishment be meted out with regard to the level of moral blameworthiness of the offender" ... 80 However, the meaning of retribution is deserving of some clarification. The legitimacy of retribution as a principle of sentencing has often been questioned as a result of its unfortunate association with "vengeance" in common parlance. See ... R. v. Hinch and Salanski [cite following and] ... R. v. Calder [site following] ...

But it should be clear from my foregoing discussion that retribution bears little relation to vengeance, and I attribute much of the criticism of retribution as a principle to this confusion. As both academic and judicial commentators have noted, vengeance has no role to play in a civilized system of sentencing. See Ruby, Sentencing ... Vengeance, as I understand it, represents an uncalibrated act of harm upon another, frequently motivated by emotion and anger, as a reprisal for harm inflicted upon oneself by that person.

Retribution in a criminal context, by contrast, represents an objective, reasoned and measured determination of an appropriate punishment which properly reflects the moral culpability of the offender, having regard to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, the consequential harm caused by the offender, and the normative character of the offender's conduct. Furthermore, unlike vengeance, retribution incorporates a principle of restraint; retribution requires the imposition of a just and appropriate punishment, and nothing more. As R.

Cross has noted in The English Sentencing System [cite following] "The retributivist insists that the punishment must not be disproportionate to the offender's deserts."

81 Retribution, as well, should be conceptually distinguished from its legitimate sibling, denunciation. Retribution requires that a judicial sentence properly reflect the moral blameworthiness of that particular offender. The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentence should also communicate society's condemnation of that particular offender's conduct. In short, a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law.

As Lord Justice Lawton stated in R. v. Sargeant [cite following] ... "society, through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime, and the only way in which the courts can show this is by the sentences they pass". The relevance of both retribution and denunciation as goals of sentencing underscores that our criminal justice system is not simply a vast system of negative penalties designed to prevent objectively harmful conduct by increasing the cost the offender must bear in committing an enumerated offence. Our criminal law is also a system of values.

A sentence which expresses denunciation is simply the means by which these values are communicated. In short, in addition to attaching negative consequences to undesirable behaviour, judicial sentences should also be imposed in a manner which positively instills the basic set of communal values shared by all Canadians as expressed by the Criminal Code . [43] These concepts are enshrined as principles of sentence in our criminal law. They are a reflection of the human need for justice and fairness tempered by reason and compassion and mercy.

They are as important to First Nations people as they are to all humans. [44] Mr. L. is a relatively youthful adult offender with one prior unrelated conviction and so I must also consider the importance of his rehabilitation. It is clear that he takes responsibility for his behaviour and his early guilty plea is clear evidence of this. I accept that he is remorseful and that he sincerely wishes to improve himself to ensure that he never acts out in such a reprehensible manner again. All of these principles must be balanced in determining an appropriate sentence. [45] It is also clear that Mr.

L. has been impacted by the negative systemic effects of colonization and the resulting intergenerational trauma experienced by our Native people, and I find his moral culpability is mitigated by this unique background. [46] The range of sentence for such an offence is broad depending on all of the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Counsel for the Crown have relied on the cases of R. v. J.L.C. , supra, R. v. Moses . . . R. v. Humchitt . . .

I am familiar with many other cases and find that the circumstances justifying a non-custodial sentence would be unusual. [47] Sentences of six or nine or 12 months for a first offence at the low end of the range of seriousness and where the offender has pleaded guilty are commonly imposed. Sentences which are in the mid to high provincial range usually involve offenders who do not have the benefit of the mitigation of a guilty plea or have prior related criminal histories or have engaged in more egregious forms of contact or coercion. [ 31 ] The sexual touching in R. v.

K.L.L. was at the low end of the spectrum of seriousness. In that matter, a sentence of six months was imposed with three years' probation to follow. He had one prior conviction for assaulting a partner. His mother was an alcoholic and his upbringing was chaotic. He had been sexually abused as a child in foster care. He had experienced recent trauma when his former girlfriend committed suicide. He had some cognitive limitations. A significant factor in mitigation was the offender's early guilty plea. [ 32 ] R. v.

Magalong , unreported, is a sentencing decision of Madam Justice Maisonville, Vancouver Registry 25878, date of judgment October 12, 2012, following conviction by a jury. A sentence of 22 months was imposed with probation to follow. The offender was in his early forties at the time of the offences and had no criminal history. The victim was seven to nine years of age. There was some degree of grooming. The offender was at a high risk to reoffend. [ 33 ] At paragraph 21, the court considered a quote from our Court of Appeal in R. v.

Allen , 2012 BCCA 377 , which in turn contained a reference to the passage set out above in R. v. C.A.M. , and ended with the following: Parliament has made it very clear that the protection of children is a basic value of Canadian society which the courts must defend. It has done this by creating a minimum sentence of imprisonment . . . [ 34 ] Madam Justice Maisonville went on to state [as read in]: I note that Parliament has similarly here expressed its view of this offence in creating a minimum sentence of imprisonment.

The court noted as well that the sentence length for sexual offences has been increasing and the range is higher. [ 35 ] In R. v. Rennie , 2013 BCSC 909 , the offender was 35 and the victims were his girlfriend's daughters who were five and six years of age. He rubbed their genitals while they were in bed. He was unremorseful and continued to deny the offences through trial. He had one prior conviction for assault of a partner and was non-compliant with his terms of release. He was at a moderate risk to

reoffend and his prospects for rehabilitation were not strong. He received a 22-month sentence with probation to follow. [ 36 ] R. v. Williams , 2011 BCCA 194 , is a case involving an aboriginal offender. He was 41 years of age and an alcoholic. He had sexual intercourse with an unconscious 15-year-old girl.

In that matter, the Court of Appeal did not find any error and upheld the sentence of low federal time, which took into account that offender's particular circumstances and the increased likelihood of his rehabilitation with the programming available in federal institutions. [ 37 ] In this matter, I must craft a sentence which balances all of the particular circumstances of this offence and this offender and which will serve the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, as required by s. 718.01, as well as the other principles of sentence set out in ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2, with particular attention to the circumstances of this offender as an aboriginal person. [ 38 ] This offender's sexual interference is overall more serious than that in K.L.L. , supra .

Moreover, his moral culpability is higher, given that he does not have cognitive challenges. Neither is this offender entitled to a reduction in sentence for an early plea. Nevertheless, I find that his moral culpability is reduced to some extent as a result of the impact of the systemic effects of colonization and the resulting intergenerational trauma experienced by our native people. [ 39 ] I have taken into account that he is a youthful adult offender with no criminal history and that his prospects for rehabilitation are positive.

I accept that he is remorseful and accepts responsibility for his conduct. [ 40 ] In this matter, I find that an appropriate sentence would be 12 months' incarceration, to be followed by three years' probation. He will be credited with four months' time served and the sentence will be a further eight months in custody.

I am hopeful he will be able to take advantage of the program at Ford Mountain Institution, which is recommended by the writer of the presentence report. [ 41 ] For the breach allegation, I impose a sentence of one day in custody. [ 42 ] As to the terms of probation, it is always preferable to make an order which would better serve the principles of restoration and reparation by imposing terms that would serve his community and be culturally sensitive.

However, I lack any meaningful input from the community in this regard and must rely on my general knowledge of community resources, both within the Squamish Nation and in the Vancouver area. [ 43 ] Mr. N., if you will stand.

As you have just heard, the sentence is 12 months with four months' time served, so a further eight months and probation for three years. [ 44 ] You can be seated while I go through the terms. [ 45 ] The terms will be that you will keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [ 46 ] You are to report within 72 hours of your release from custody to a probation officer at 100, 233 West 1st Street in North Vancouver, and report thereafter as and when directed by the probation officer. [ 47 ] You are to provide your current address to the probation officer and do not change that residence without the prior written permission of the probation officer. [ 48 ] You are to have no contact, direct or indirect, with -- and I will hear from the Crown if there are others, other than the complainants, that is S.L., S.B., and K.B. [ 49 ] You are not to attend within a one-block radius of any residence at which you know S.L., S.B., or K.B. to reside. [ 50 ] You must not attend to any place of residence or place of education at which you know S.B., S.L., or K.B. to attend or work. [ 51 ] You will abstain absolutely from the possession or consumption of alcohol or any drugs or substances scheduled in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , save and except according to a medical prescription and then only according to the dosage prescribed. [ 52 ] You will attend for, accept, and complete any counselling, to include but not limited to sex-offender counselling or treatment, or substance abuse counselling or treatment, and complete same to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [ 53 ] If I am making a s. 161 order, the no contact with any person under the age of 18, should that also be included in the probation? [ 54 ] MS.

BRYSON: In my view, it would be just simply a standalone order. [ 55 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 56 ] MS.

BRYSON: And for whatever the duration as the court sees appropriate, but perhaps it would make sense to make it the same length as the probation. [ 57 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 58 ] You are not to attend Totem Hall in Squamish, British Columbia. [ 59 ] You will attend for and participate in any forensic psychiatric or psychological assessments to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [ 60 ] You will attend to the Warriors Against Violence Program on the direction of your probation officer and complete same to the

satisfaction of your probation officer. [ 61 ] You will attend to the Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice Centre at the direction of your probation officer. [ 62 ] Those are the terms. [ 63 ] He will be required to provide a sample of his DNA and that is on a primary offence basis. [ 64 ] MS. BRYSON: It is, Your Honour, and I've already written out the

section numbers for Madam Registrar in relation to the SOIRA , the DNA, and the no contact with persons under s. 161. [ 65 ] THE COURT: Pursuant to s. 161, I am going to make a prohibition order. [ 66 ] What are you asking for? [ 67 ] MS. BRYSON: I would say for the three years. [ 68 ] THE COURT: Mr. Smith? [ 69 ] MR.

SMITH: Yes. [ 70 ] THE COURT: You are prohibited for a period of three years: - from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground, or community centre; - from seeking, obtaining, or continuing in any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years; or - using a computer system within the meaning of s. 342.1(2) for the purpose of communicating with a person under the age of 16 years. [ 71 ] You will be subject to the Sex Offender Information Registry Act for a period of 10 years. [ 72 ] So does that cover all of the -- [ 73 ] MS.

BRYSON: I believe it does. Your Honour, was there a no-contact in relation to all children under 16 years? [ 74 ] THE COURT: Oh no, I did not impose that. [ 75 ] MS. BRYSON: Okay. [ 76 ] THE COURT: So you are wishing, for the term of his probation, not to be found in the presence of or be alone in the presence of anyone under the age of 16? [ 77 ] MS. BRYSON: Just look at the wording that Your Honour used in K.L.L. , my recollection was when I read it at the time, I felt that the conditions that Your Honour imposed in that case were exhaustive. [ 78 ] THE COURT: Have you got the decision there? [ 79 ] MS.

BRYSON: I do, Your Honour. "You are not to be found" -- I am looking at paragraph 19 of the copy that I provided Your Honour with: You are not to be found in the presence of any female under the age of 16 except in the presence of another adult person. [ 80 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 81 ] MS. BRYSON: And my friend and I had discussed this, as opposed to making it any person under 16. There is no suggestion at all that Mr. N. has ever shown any sexual interest in male children. [ 82 ] THE COURT: Okay.

So that term will also be included: You are not to be found in the presence of any female 16 years or under, except in the company of another adult person. [ 83 ] MS. BRYSON: Yes. [ 84 ] THE COURT: All right, and if there is a victim offender surcharge, I will waive that for him. Good luck, Mr. N. [ 85 ] MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 86 ] THE CLERK: Sorry, Your Honour, just some housekeeping, so the -4-A is just probation or -- [ 87 ] THE COURT: One day. [ 88 ] THE CLERK: One day.

[ 89 ] THE COURT: Yes, that is it, no probation, a simple one-day sentence. [ 90 ] THE CLERK: And then the probation is on the C-3, thank you. [ 91 ] THE COURT: Yes. (REASONS CONCLUDED)