2013 NBCA 11, 2013 NBCA 11

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 91-12-CA JEFFREY KERR SMITH APPELLANT JEFFREY KERR SMITH APPELANT - and - - et - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE INTIMÉE Smith v. R., 2013 NBCA 11 Smith c.

R., 2013 NBCA 11 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Deschênes The Honourable Justice Robertson The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : L’honorable juge Deschênes L’honorable juge Robertson L’honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: April 24, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 24 avril 2012 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: 2012 NBQB 131 Décision frappée d’appel : 2012 NBBR 131 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o.

Appeal heard: January 15, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 15 janvier 2013 Judgment rendered: February 7, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 7 février 2013

Counsel at hearing: Jeffrey Kerr Smith appeared in person For the respondent: Cameron H. Gunn Avocats à l’audience : Jeffrey Kerr Smith a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : Cameron H. Gunn THE COURT Leave to appeal conviction and sentence is denied. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] On April 24, 2012, the appellant was found guilty on three counts of assault with a weapon, an indictable offence under s. 267 (

a) of the Criminal Code . Subsequently, he was sentenced to 40 days in jail for each offence, to be served consecutively, and placed on probation for 18 months. The appellant appeals both the conviction and the sentence. As the grounds of appeal with respect to the conviction raise questions of fact or mixed law and fact, leave of this Court is required under s. 675(1)( a )(ii). Correlatively, all of the grounds advanced involve the trial judge’s evaluation with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence. In our view, there is simply no plausible basis for interference. Accordingly, we deny the requisite leave. With respect to the appeal from sentence, s. 675(1)(

b) requires leave of this Court. In our view, there is no legal basis for interference. Having regard to the appellant’s previous conviction for a similar offence under s. 267 ( b ), and two prior convictions for assault under s. 266( b ), the trial judge’s decision cannot be impeached on the ground the sentence is clearly unreasonable having regard to the principles of sentencing. Accordingly, leave to appeal the sentence is denied. ______________________________________ ALEXANDRE DESCHÊNES, J.A. _______________________________________ J.T. ROBERTSON, J.A. ________________________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A.