R. v. Goodwin Date:, 2012 BCPC 439

Citation: R. v. Goodwin Date: 20121121 2012 BCPC 0439 File No: 35166-1 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JASON ALEXANDER GOODWIN REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. J. O'BYRNE Counsel for the Crown: S. Keyes Counsel for the Defendant: P. Pakenham Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Sentence: November 21, 2012 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Jason Alexander Goodwin appears for sentencing on Information 35166 wherein I convicted him of Count 1 after a trial.

[2] The facts, simply put, are that a homeowner came home to find Mr. Goodwin in his home, he having broken into it. There wasa confrontation, not that was anything physical or violent, but there was, and Mr. Goodwin fled from the home, was subsequentlychased, and then apprehended. [3] The Crown points out on the previous occasion Mr. Goodwin, having been convicted 16 times before, at least, of break andenter, previously served three years.

The Crown suggests that the appropriate thing for me to do is step up, in other words, add more onthis time. [4] The Crown points to your 41 previous convictions, of which I have mentioned there are 16 break and enters and perhaps threemore, so this would put it into the twentieth break and enter. [5] The Crown says that the protection of the public is the most paramount sentencing factor that I must consider over generaldeterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, and they say this because just within days after your release from custody for breakand enter, you committed this break and enter. [6] I have had the opportunity of reviewing a thorough pre-sentence report that was prepared over the signature of Shane Vajda,and it is eight pages in length.

As well, there is a forensic psychiatric report over the signature of Dr. Morgan. Both those reports shouldbe read by any person reviewing this sentence because it shows a person, as Mr. Goodwin has himself just said to me, who is not aperson that he wants to be. It is not a person who is somebody who is willing or able to accept the guidance of the courts. You are nowbehind bars.

You have been dry, I am told, for 13 months, and accordingly, you are a different person, but the problem is that once youget out from behind bars, that person does not stick around. [7] I have as well been directed by the Crown to review the cases of R. v. Essiambre, 2004 BCCA 150; R. v. Tyrlik, [1997] B.C.J.No. 2234; R. v. Blake, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1162 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Pelech, (B.C.C.A.). All of those cases are caseswhich deal with people such as yourself who can easily be termed to be career criminals.

The only thing that we can do with careercriminals is to lock them up. [8] Your counsel points to the fact that you are 42 years of age. I notice from reading the pre-sentence report you have a son thatyou want to try and reconnect with, and that you have become institutionalized.

All I can say, sir, is that is of your own doing. [9] I am told that you spent 13 months pre-trial custody, and I will credit you with 13 months pre-trial custody, but I think in allthe circumstances - stand up - even taking into account the pre-trial custody, there will be a sentence of three years' new time startingnow. [10] I will direct that you will supply such samples of your DNA as necessary for inclusion in the DNA databank. It is primary,Madam Registrar. [11] Anything else, Counsel? I will waive the victim fine surcharge. [12] MR. PAKENHAM: Thank you. No, that's all I have.

Thank you, Your Honour. [13] THE COURT: What about Count 2? What did we do with that? [14] MS. KEYES: It was stayed back in July. [15] THE COURT: Okay. That's good. (REASONS CONCLUDED)