R v Renz, 2023 MBPC 20

CITATION : R v Renz , 2023 MBPC 20 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA Steinbach, Manitoba BETWEEN His Majesty the King ) D. Burland ) for the Crown – and – ) ) Tobias Renz ) M. Dyck ) for the Accused ) ) Delivered: ) April 27, 2023 ALLEN, P.J. [ 1 ] Tobias Renz has plead guilty to the following charges: - Two counts of arson to property on December 5, 2021 - Theft under $5,000 on December 13, 2021 - Theft of a motor vehicle on December 13, 2021 - Theft under $5,000 on December 15, 2021 - Robbery with a weapon on December 15, 2021 - Arson to motor vehicle on December 15, 2021 [ 2 ] Mr.

Renz is 22 years old and was 21 at the time of these offences. [ 3 ] The first charge, from December 5, 2021, came about as a result of Mr. Renz throwing a “Molotov cocktail” through the window of an abandoned house on a street in Steinbach. The second charge, also from December 5, 2021, arose resulting from Mr. Renz setting fire to a van. After doing so, he filmed the fire department arriving and putting out the fire. [ 4 ] Police became aware that Tobias Renz was the perpetrator of these offences several weeks later, when he telephoned police to confess. [ 5 ] Mr.

Renz has also plead guilty to the December 13, 2021 theft of a grey Honda Civic. A wallet had been in the car and the money within was also taken. Also that day, Mr. Renz went to a Co-op gas bar near where he had stolen the Honda and filled a backpack with energy drinks, cigarettes and candy, and left without paying for those items. He had also filled the stolen car and two Jerry cans with premium gas. He also left without paying for the gas. At a later point, police executed a warrant at the accused’s residence and found some of the stolen items.

Police also found clothing in the subject’s room that matched the video footage of the perpetrator of the thefts from the Co-op gas bar. [ 6 ] The last three charges are all from December 15, 2021. On that day, Mr. Renz, driving the stolen Honda, drove to the Subway restaurant at Deacon’s Corner off Highway 1. He was later identified by surveillance video. After leaving the Subway, he drove to the Co-op gas bar in Lorette, Manitoba. He had $63 worth of gas put in the car and drove away without paying. [ 7 ] About an hour later on that day, at 10:21 a.m. he went to the Tempo gas station in Tourond, Manitoba.

He ran into the store carrying what appeared to be an AK-47 assault rifle. He demanded cigarettes and money. He received about $100 in small bills. [ 8 ] After leaving the Tempo he returned to the Subway. This time his jacket hood was not up and employees got a clear look at his face. Those employees later recognized Mr. Renz from photos released by the RCMP as to the other matters set out above. Later that day, at 2:15 p.m. he went to a Shell gas station on Pembina Highway. Once again wearing a face covering and a hood and carrying what appeared to be an assault rifle, demanding money and cigarettes.

The plexiglass-protected clerk refused to comply and Mr. Renz left the business, but not before firing a pellet from the pellet rifle he was carrying. [ 9 ] Within the same hour he returned to Deacon’s Corner and went to the Little Caesar’s restaurant. Once again he carried the imitation rifle or pellet gun and demanded money. While waiting for the young female clerk to comply, he knocked the restaurant’s debit machine off the counter. He received between $150 and $200 in cash. [ 10 ] Ten minutes after leaving Little Caesar’s, he sent a photo from his phone showing a wad of $20 bills.

Also in the picture are a camouflage jacket, sweatpants and sandals which appear to match what he was wearing in the Little Caesar’s robbery. About 90 minutes

later the RCMP received a call that a Honda Civic was on fire on a road a short distance from the Trans-Canada Highway near Dufresne, Manitoba. The subject car was the vehicle stolen earlier by Mr. Renz and ultimately set on fire by him. [ 11 ] Eventually the police launched an investigation that accumulated considerable evidence by way of clothing seized and information from the subject’s phone which linked him to the robberies being investigated. [ 12 ] A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) was filed in this matter. Information from that report indicated that the offender has been in custody since January of 2022.

In October of 2022 he entered into the Winding River rehabilitation program and has now completed three levels of that program. [ 13 ] When interviewed for the PSR, Mr. Renz acknowledged that his actions were harmful to the community. He also said that he feels that he has benefited from the programming that he has received while in jail. [ 14 ] Mr. Renz was born in Germany, moved to Canada as a young child and has lived in the Steinbach area subsequently. The subject is one of 12 children. Many of his siblings attended court to show their support. [ 15 ] It appears from the background provided that Mr.

Renz had been employed working at a construction company run by one of his brothers, but that as a result of a car accident, he stopped working about three months before these offences. He apparently moved to Winnipeg, dropped contact with his family and fell in with people who were consuming and “distributing” drugs. His brother Artur confirms that a job is still available for him. [ 16 ] The Crown position on the charges facing Mr. Renz is that he should face a total period of five years of incarceration.

The defence position is that a conditional sentence order (CSO) for two years would be an appropriate sentence. The defence indicated that Mr. Renz is a permanent resident of Canada, not a citizen, and as such a jail sentence of over two years may have significant repercussions to his immigration status. [ 17 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing, as set out in the Criminal Code at

section 718.1 reads: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” [ 18 ] In this case, the offences before the court are very serious. Robbery with a firearm, whether real or imitation puts victims into a situation of extreme anxiety. Mr. Renz is accounting for three separate incidents of having gone into businesses with his face covered or close to covered, carrying what appeared realistically to be a deadly weapon.

In addition, he on one occasion recklessly set fire to a derelict dwelling, and on another to a stolen car. [ 19 ] The gravity of these offences is significant. [ 20 ] Mr. Renz grew up in a supportive, productive home with apparently involved parents and siblings. He had been employed on a full-time basis until shortly before these matters. He told the PSR reporter that drug addiction was behind these events, but as stated above he was fully employed until three months before these events and seemed to be stable and well adjusted until a brief sojourn into Winnipeg. [ 21 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out guidelines as to appropriate sanctions that sentencing judges must be governed by.

These sanctions include: denunciation, deterrence, separation from society when necessary, rehabilitation, reparation to the community, and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 22 ] In this case it is clearly necessary that an appropriate sentence denounce and deter others from similar crimes. [ 23 ] The Court of Appeal in R v Okemow , 2017 MBCA 59 said the following at paragraph 112: An armed robbery of a 24-hour retail location, such as a convenience store, gas station, pharmacy or fast-food outlet, is aggravating because the workers in those stores are vulnerable.

They are often working alone and are in possession of cash or other valuable items, such as cigarettes. As Carlson PJ noted in R v Mandzuk , 2007 MBPC 34 , such locations are “soft targets” and the victims of such robberies “are deserving of special protection of the law” (at para 34). [ 24 ] And from R v McMillan (BW) , 2016 MBCA 12 at paragraph 12 , the Court said that the serious nature of this crime requires a sentencing judge to focus “more on an offender’s conduct than any circumstances particular to that offender”. [ 25 ] A further sanction set out in Criminal Code

section 718 is separation where necessary. To that end the Crown filed R v Dalkeith-Mackie , 2018 MBCA 118 , which referred to an earlier decision of our appeal court which set out a guideline for armed robbery.

From R v Charlette (JJ) , 2015 MBCA 32 at paragraph 46 : [T]he starting point for a judge’s analysis when sentencing an offender with no previous criminal record for robbery of a taxi driver when armed with a weapon is a sentence between two and four years, depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender, unless there are mitigating factors that call for an emphasis on rehabilitation rather than deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public. [ 26 ] In Okemow , Justice Mainella said at paragraph 112 that this two- to four-year guideline is not limited solely to cases involving taxi drivers. [ 27 ] And further in Dalkeith-Mackie the Court said at paragraph 20:

The two to four-year starting point presumes a mature accused with no criminal record and prior good character, and is adjusted for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender ( see R v JRA , 2012 MBCA 48 at para 5 ). [ 28 ] Further, from

section 718 , rehabilitation must be considered. In this case, Mr. Renz is a young person. He has already shown some indications that he is a good candidate for rehabilitation by the programming that he has completed while in custody.

There is nothing in the material before the court to suggest that the positive steps he has taken while in jail will not continue once he returns to the community. [ 29 ] In Dalkeith-Mackie , Justice leMaistre at paragraph 26 said: Generally, exceptional circumstances will only be found in the clearest of cases involving multiple mitigating factors or a highly unusual motive for committing the offence (see Burnett at para 29). [ 30 ] In my opinion, in the case at bar there are not multiple mitigating factors, nor did Mr. Renz have a sympathetic explanation as to why he committed these offences.

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code reads: A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. [ 31 ] In this case, it is mitigating that Mr. Renz has plead guilty, sparing the state the many hours of preparation and police attendance at court. Also sparing the civilian witnesses from having to relive these traumatizing events. [ 32 ] It is also mitigating that, as to two of the arson charges, Mr. Renz reported on himself and has been somewhat co-operative with investigators. It is also to Mr.

Renz’s credit that he asked to be admitted to the Winding River rehabilitative program and he has completed three levels of that programming. [ 33 ] It is aggravating that there are multiple events in this string of charges that Mr. Renz is accounting for today. These events took place over several weeks. They are senseless crimes with no indication that Mr. Renz was desperate for money. The arsons were destructive and dangerous with no ascertainable purpose. [ 34 ]

Section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code says: “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.” [ 35 ] As stated earlier in the quotes from Dalkeith-Mackie and Okemow , the sentencing guidelines for the robbery offences is two to four years.

As has often been stated in Canadian jurisprudence, guidelines are only suggestions which are not meant to overrule a sentencing judge’s balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors as well as the gravity of the offences and the responsibility of the offender. [ 36 ] Defence provided the case of R v Justin Scott Lea , 2010 MBCA 37 in support of a CSO. In that case, Mr. Lea received a two- year CSO for two robberies of convenience stores.

The appeal decision does not provide any detail of these robberies other than that they took place on the same night and the offender did them “while on a cocaine binge” ( Lea at para 3 ). There are no other details provided as to the offender’s circumstances or details of the robberies themselves. Accordingly, there is insufficient information about this case to assist me in determining why that sentence was imposed in that case. [ 37 ] In this case, there is very little in Mr. Renz’s childhood or family background which can be seen as predicting this form of dysfunctional behaviour.

Perhaps this fact gives further credence to defence counsel’s suggestion that this crime spree stems from drug use and the instability that would inevitably flow from his admitted use of cocaine and methamphetamine. Further, I agree that Mr. Renz does not appear to be criminally entrenched and that the behaviour he evidenced in December of 2021 was out of character. Given his very young age, there is every hope that the spree that he is accounting for today will be a “one-off” and that he will have realized the error of this behaviour. [ 38 ] Mr. Renz seeks a conditional sentence.

Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code sets out the conditional sentence regime. To order a conditional sentence, I would have to be satisfied that a period of incarceration for less than two years would be an appropriate sentence.

In this case, given the serious nature of these charges, I do not feel that a sentence of less than two years would meet the requirements of the principles of sentencing. [ 39 ] In this case, not only do I think that a period of incarceration greater than two years is required, but I also feel that a CSO would not be consistent with the principles of sentencing, as required by the CSO-enabling legislation. [ 40 ] I am mindful of defence counsel’s information that anything other than a CSO will trigger immigration consequences for this offender, but I am also mindful of the requirement that allowing for immigration consequences must not render the disposition inappropriate.

As stated by the Supreme Court in R v Pham , 2013 SCC 15 (at paras 14-15 ): The general rule continues to be that a sentence must be fit having regard to the particular crime and the particular offender. In other words, a sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, provided that the sentence that is ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences in order to avoid collateral consequences which may flow from a statutory scheme or from other legislation, thus circumventing Parliament’s will. [ 41 ] In my view, given the circumstances of these offences and this offender, a prison sentence is required and the CSO which has been suggested would produce an inadequate and unfit sentence. [ 42 ] Taking into consideration the sentencing principles discussed above and this offender’s circumstances, particularly mindful of considerations as to his rehabilitation and his youth, he will be sentenced as follows: 1) As to the arson to property charge from December 5, 2021, he will be sentenced to a period of incarceration for 30 days. 2) As to the arson to the car set on fire on December 5, 2021, he will be sentenced to a period of incarceration of 90 days, consecutive. 3) As to the arson to the car set fire on December 15, 2021, he will be sentenced to a period of incarceration of 90 days, consecutive. 4) As to the theft of a motor vehicle from December 13, 2021, he will be sentenced to a period of incarceration of 60 days, consecutive. 5) On the theft under charges from December 13 and 15, 2021, one day court appearance, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the other charges. 6) On the three robbery charges from December 15, 2021, he will be sentenced to a period of incarceration of 36 months, or 1095 days, consecutive. [ 43 ] The total sentence is 1366 days, which is approximately three years and nine months. [ 44 ] Before passing sentence, a sentencing judge must take a last look at the overall sentence and determine if that sentence could be detrimental to the rehabilitation of the offender.

Given Mr. Renz’s youth, I am concerned that a sentence of this length, particularly considering that he has already been in jail for a fairly long time, may crush the rehabilitative inclination he has evidenced while incarcerated. [ 45 ] Accordingly, from a totality perspective, I am reducing the sentence on the robberies from 36 months to 30 months, or 912 days. [ 46 ] Mr. Renz has been in custody for 468 days, which enhanced becomes 702 days. When 702 days are deducted from 912, he goes forward with 210 days on the robbery charges.

On all his other charges, he goes forward with 270 days, for a total of 480 days going forward. [ 47 ] Additionally, there will be a mandatory DNA order (the sample to be taken while in custody) and a 10-year weapons’ prohibition pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code . Costs and surcharges are waived. Original signed by Judge Allen H. L. ALLEN, P.J.