R. v. St-Antoine, 2014 QCCQ 5621

R. c. Leonidas Plastaras 2014 QCCQ 5621 JC1649 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF TERREBONNE CITY OF ST-JÉRÔME « Criminal division » N° : 700-01-099005-111 DATE : July 7, 2014 UNDER THE PRESIDENCE OF : HONOURABLE PAUL CHEVALIER, J.C.Q. THE QUEEN c. LOUIS LEONIDAS PLASTARAS SENTENCE [ 1 ] Mr. Louis Leonidas Plastaras recognized his guilt for producing marijuana and for possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. [ 2 ] On February 9, 2011, police officers seized 736 mature plants and 100,44g of marijuana in the house where accused was living.

Having financial problems because he had no job, was partying a lot, had no income and had debts for approximately $15,000, accused accepted an offer made by someone who offered him $25,000 to take care of a site of production of marijuana during 3 months. [ 3 ] He lied to his family and to his girl friend, explaining that he would be away for a period of 3 months since he got a renovation job in Ontario. [ 4 ] Accused had a pending case of possession of cocaine when he was arrested. [ 5 ] Michael Gingras, a person who was taking care of the production with accused and who was arrested at the same time, was sentenced to an imprisonment of 14 months and 20 days – he had been on preventive custody for 3 months and 11 days. [ 6 ] The Crown, insisting on the principle of disparity and on the fact that sentences for this type of offence in the district are generally sentences of incarceration, asks the Court to impose on the accused a sentence of imprisonment of 18 months and a probation order of three years. [ 7 ] Counsel for the accused, relying on a case of R. v.

St-Antoine [1] and on the fact that accused has changed "a lot", according to his mother, since his arrest, requires the Court to allow the accused to serve his sentence in the community. [ 8 ] The maximum penalty for producing marijuana is an imprisonment of 7 years while for the possession of the quantity of marijuana the accused had for trafficking, the maximum penalty is an imprisonment of 5 years less a day. [ 9 ] Accused's responsibility for these offences is total. [ 10 ] The aggravating factors in this case are : − The fact that accused was awaiting trial for possession of cocaine; − The amount of plants produced, 736; − The fact that accused used a dwelling house that belonged to a third party in committing the offence; − The fact that there was a by-pass of electricity;

− The fact that accused accepted to be involved in that criminal activity only to get fast money to pay back the debts he had accumulated mainly on account of his irresponsible lifestyle; [ 11 ] The mitigating factors are : − His plea of guilt; − The fact that is has completely changed, not being in contact anymore with people he used to get with when he was partying; having found a job less that one month after his arrest and still having it; 3 years later, being, according to his mother's testimony a better person, responsible, caring for others; − The fact that he did not get any money for his crime; − The fact that he plans to get married in 3 years with a young lady he has been dating for 5 years and who is studying to become a pharmacist, who was present in Court to support him; − The fact that he cooperated with the police when arrested; − The fact that he did not try to hide anything, telling the probation officer he had been arrested and charged in the past for uttering threats while the probation officer was unable to find any trace of such charge; − The fact that, fortunately, the production was seized before it could he harvested and that, therefore, no one suffered from the crime committed, apart the owner of the house. [ 12 ] Appeal Courts have constantly affirmed that producing or trafficking in marijuana is a plague and that the objectives of denouncing the unlawful conduct and deterring the offender and other persons from committing that type of offence have to be stressed when a sentence is imposed. [ 13 ] This is the main reason why usually sentences of incarceration are imposed, even to persons having no previous record. [ 14 ] On the other hand where, like here, a convincing demonstration of rehabilitation has been made, Courts are justified in making conditional sentence orders when they are satisfied that the safety of the community would not be endangered. [2] [ 15 ] As for the argument of the Crown that on account of the sentencing principle of disparity the accused should receive a sentence similar to that imposed on his accomplice, it is to be noted that when Michael Gingras was sentenced, it was for the present production, but also for another production of marijuana dating December 3, 2009, hence for two productions of drug. [ 16 ] The principle of disparity cannot therefore be invoked here. [ 17 ] Considering the rehabilitation shown by the accused since February 2011, his plans of marriage whit a serious and positive lady, the fact that his family is close to him and supports him, the Court is convinced that he would not be a danger for the public if he were to serve his sentence in the community.

The Court is also of the opinion that such a sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. [ 18 ] For those reasons, the accused is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, on the two counts, of 18 months that he will be able to serve in the community if he complies with the conditions of the conditional sentence order. [ 19 ] He will have to pay the fine surcharge on each count. [ 20 ] The Court is making the order provided by sec. 109 Cr. c. for a period of 10 years. [ 21 ] The Court orders the forfeiture and destruction of the drug seized as well as of all the equipment that was used for the production.

PC/nc PAUL CHEVALIER, J.C.Q. Me Danielle Miron For the Crown. Me Louis Frédérique Carmichaël-Moreau For the accused. Date of the hearing : June 10, 2014