R. v. Corbett Date:, 2016 BCPC 132

Citation: R. v. Corbett Date: 20160224 2016 BCPC 0132 File No: 83689-1 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. CODY JACOB CORBET T REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.I. SOLOMON Counsel for the Crown: R. McLeod Counsel for the Accused: D. Schultz Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 26, 2016 Date of Sentence: February 24, 2016

[ 1 ] THE COURT : Mr. Corbett is before me for sentencing. These are my reasons. [ 2 ] Mr. Corbett has pled guilty on Information 83689 to two counts. The first count is that on November 18, 2015, at or near Abbotsford, in the Province of British Columbia, did commit extortion of Katlin Grant, contrary to s. 346(1.1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . He has also pled guilty to Count 4, that on November 18, 2015, at or near Abbotsford, in the Province of British Columbia, did rob Katlin Grant, contrary to s. 344 of the Criminal Code. [ 3 ] The circumstances are relatively straightforward. On November 18, 2015, Mr. Corbett and an accomplice entered the residence of Katlin Grant and Taylor Volker through an unlocked front door, and upon entering, demanded restitution or reimbursement for the cost of a vehicle that he had purchased from Mr. Grant some three months earlier. I am told that the value of this automobile was $600. Mr.

Corbett advised Mr. Grant that the vehicle was not working and he wanted his money back. [ 4 ] To extort this money from Mr. Grant, Mr. Corbett and his accomplice had brought with them a sledgehammer and a knife. An altercation ensued in which Mr. Grant attempted to defend himself and he was stabbed three times by Mr. Corbett. [ 5 ] The Fraser Health Authority hospital record was filed as Exhibit 4. It confirms that Mr. Grant suffered three penetrating injuries, one to the right chest, one to the right abdomen and one to the right buttock/thigh area.

This is also confirmed in a Victim Impact Statement prepared by Mr. Grant in which he says: I have not worked since November 18, 2015 when the crime happened. I feel fine during the day, but once I lay in bed, I can see the whole night of the crime playing in my head. My spouse wants to sleep with the lights on. Physically, it's hard to breathe. I have nerve damage in my right leg. Collapsed lung is starting to get better, but still sore. His injuries are described as a collapsed lung, nerve damage in the leg and five huge scars.

He says he was flown to Royal Columbian Hospital because he was in critical condition. Since then, I have not worked. When I was in the hospital, the surgeon had to put a chest tube in my chest so I could breathe. He says the police only arrested one of the two men involved. The other is still at large. We have since put more lights on the front door, and a bell that rings before anyone walks up to the door.

I have a spouse that is close to seven months pregnant and she wants to move away from Abbotsford, because we both believe that if Cody can do this once, he can and will do it again. [ 6 ] There is another Victim Impact Statement by Taylor Volker, the spouse of Mr. Grant. She says: I got fired from my job because of how much stress I was under and it's affecting how I worked. I've been sleeping with the lights on. I'm afraid someone's going to come back. I'm pregnant seven months now.

I feel stressed and worried and scared. [ 7 ] In the course of this what I think is fairly described as a home invasion to extort money, Mr. Corbett took a laptop belonging to Mr. Grant. It was a MacBook Pro worth $2200, and that has not been returned. That comprises Count 4 of the robbery count. [ 8 ] The Crown, in my view, fairly describes the offence as a robbery with violence and extortion as the offences that have been pled guilty to. [ 9 ] Mr. Corbett has an unenviable record for a 24-year-old young man. The bulk of it is a youth record.

He has two thefts, six possession of stolen property offences, and 11 break and enters. There is only one violent offence; assault causing bodily harm from 2007. There are two breaches. There is an obstruct justice and dangerous driving times two. Altogether, there are 25 convictions. The record dates from 2005 to the present. [ 10 ] Crown takes the position that a four-year sentence, concurrent on each offence, is appropriate, less time spent on remand. Time served to date is 94 days.

The enhanced credit will add 47 days, so 141 days of credit should be imposed, says the Crown. [ 11 ] The aggravating circumstances are, one, the offence occurred in the context of a home invasion; two, this was a premeditated, intrusive assault in a home for the purpose of confrontation; three, there is a prior conviction for assault causing bodily harm in 2007; four, there is a lengthy property record, and this is an escalation in offending; five, this is an extortion and robbery and included a stabbing in the presence of a common-law pregnant spouse; six, the accused brought two weapons with him, a sledgehammer and a knife, and both assailants were wearing gloves; seven, there was wounding and hospitalization and trauma to the victims, the victim of the assault, Mr.

Grant, and his wife, and they both fear for their safety. [ 12 ] The mitigating factors are the early guilty plea and Mr. Corbett is a relatively young man, 24 years old, and still has a future ahead of him. [ 13 ] The principles of sentencing that should be the focus of the sentencing here is denunciation and deterrence, and I am in agreement with that.

Rehabilitation is of a secondary concern, although I do take that into consideration in passing sentence today. [ 14 ] In addition to the four-year sentence, Crown is seeking a mandatory lifetime weapons ban under s. 109(3), and that is imposed. [ 15 ] They are also seeking a DNA order under s. 487.05 on both counts, and that is also imposed. [ 16 ] There is also restitution of $2200 pursuant to s. 738 (

a) of the Criminal Code , and that will also be imposed as part of this sentence.

[17] The defence essentially says that four years is certainly within the range, and once we look at the case, it will be seen that isreally at the low end of the range. In any case, defence takes the position that considering the background and circumstances of Mr.Corbett, that I should not lose sight of the fact that sentencing is an individual matter and despite the focus on denunciation anddeterrence, I also must look at the particular individual in front of me, and what might assist in his rehabilitation. [18] I am told that subsequent to this offence, Mr. Corbett himself was subject to a home invasion.

His family was tied up; hismother, father and younger sibling. He was assaulted with a shotgun and a baseball bat, and he was stabbed in the left elbow thatrequired 20 staples to close. The attackers were masked and appeared to be trying to kill him, he thought. The mother was slapped, hisfather was kicked. Police attended but there has been, to date, no charges. He had to attend to the hospital and he received 20 staples. He believes this was retaliation for the incident that occurred on November 18th, but he fairly says he does not have proof of that, and heis not coming here to court to say that Mr.

Grant is responsible for what happened, just that the timing is very suspicious and he hassuffered his own personal injuries and trauma since this offence date of November 18, 2015. [19] His background is that he is 24 years old. His roots are in Abbotsford, British Columbia. His mother and father, I am told, havehad drug addiction issues that they have struggled with, but it appears they are doing better. His mom is on methadone and they appearto be stable. He has a brother and a sister, and his sister is doing well. His brother, unfortunately, is not doing so well. [20] At ten years old, Mr.

Corbett ended up in foster care. For a short period of time, he was back home and then back in fostercare. By the age of 16, he had been in ten group homes, and even by the age of ten, he had been to 20 different schools. He said thatboth his mother and father were addicted to crack cocaine and heroin. His father was violent to his mother and himself. He recallsspecific beatings that he received. [21] He does have some support in the community. Unfortunately, a big support in the community, a Mr. Allan Russell, passedaway in 2014. [22] He has done well in his previous incarcerations.

He has completed several programs and he has received his GED, andhopefully he will continue to do so and pursue positive goals for himself going forward. He has hope to work in the construction field,but does not seem to have been able to move forward with that goal. He has worked for a hardwood floor installation company;however, he has his own drug addiction issues and suffered relapses during various periods of time. The drug he uses is heroin, and thathas, I am told, been a struggle his entire life. [23] During the past period of incarceration, he has spent time in solitary confinement.

He has seen a psychologist. He is diagnosedwith bipolar condition and he has been put on two meds for that, and for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.

He also has a familyhistory of schizophrenia. [24] I am told that he is likely to be sent to Kent Institution for his sentencing, due to the nature of these offences, and hopefully hewill be able to obtain some counselling while there to deal with his drug addiction, and perhaps to plan a future for himself out ofcustody. [25] I am told that it was always his intention to plead guilty and although this is an escalation of his previous conduct, he acted outof desperation, without much forethought. [26] It appears that there was not significant planning with respect to this offence.

He did come wearing gloves, for whateverreason, and that indicates some premeditation, and clearly confrontation was expected, but in terms of overall planning and deliberationto extort $600, this was extremely ill-conceived and seems to me to be a product of poor judgment that this young man has exercised overthe last ten years or so. [27] The cases are quite clear.

I have a casebook provided to me by Crown, and the range of sentence really for this type ofsignificant violence is between five and eight years. [28] Crown is taking the approach that four years is appropriate, even despite the case law, taking into consideration the early guiltyplea, and what I infer from that is a sense of remorse and Mr. Corbett's age and background and circumstances, which are quiteunfortunate. [29] The leading case, or one of them, appears to be a case called R. v. Dukeshire (1999) 1999 BCCA 484 , BCJ 1984. It isa Court of Appeal decision.

In that sentence, they increased a home invasion sentence from three-and-a-half years to five years. Therewere threats of violence, but no actual stabbing. The court said, at paragraph 9: In my view, the sentences imposed in the court below failed to give sufficient emphasis to the sentencing objectives of denunciation andgeneral deterrence, and to the aggravating factors of premeditated, terrifying and intrusive activity in which these offenders wereengaged.

Neither are they proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and the degree of responsibility of the offenders are clearlyunreasonable. [30] In my view, I agree with Crown counsel, Mr. McLeod, that the offences here were premeditated, terrifying and intrusive, and astrong emphasis must be on denunciation and deterrence. [31] Other cases of particular note, the case of R. v. Tkachuk

(2014) BCJ 2365, Mr. Justice Joyce, in the course of that decision,reviewed the law, quoted from the Dukeshire case, and also made reference to the Arsenault case. This is at paragraph 47, where thecourt stated: It is sometimes lost sight of that a break and enter of a residential property is a very serious offence, from the point of view of the victimsof that offence. It can, in some circumstance, have a shattering effect upon people, but short of those extreme cases, it is a significantinvasion of their privacy and their sense of having a refuge that is immune from intrusion.

That is even more applicable in a case where the victims are there and they are attacked, and in this case before us, stabbed. [ 32 ] The court says, quoting at paragraph 52 from the Court of Appeal in Bernier : What I take from all of this is that the Court of Appeal has suggested that the majority of cases of home invasion will fit somewhere in the range of five to eight years, depending upon the circumstances of the particular offences said to constitute home invasion, and the circumstance of the particular offender, but that there will be cases that fall on either side of that general range. [ 33 ] It appears that the Crown is taking a very reasonable position in this case when you look at the age and the difficult background of Mr.

Corbett, but that only goes so far. The Crown could very well have been seeking a sentence in the five-to-eight-year range in this case, but they have taken the position that I should consider something less or in the lower range of sentence. [ 34 ] Defence counsel takes the position that I should look at Mr. Corbett's background and circumstances. He has had a very difficult upbringing. He has pled guilty at an early date.

There is still hope for him, that he should be given some encouragement by the sentence, and given at least some break, even if it is only six months down from what the Crown is asking, to even consider that as an encouragement to Mr. Corbett. There is some sense to that, and I have considered that. [ 35 ] Please stand, sir. When I look at all the circumstances, and look at the principles of sentencing, in my view, the appropriate sentence, I am sentencing you, concurrent on each charge, to three years, ten months and 21 days. That will amount to time remaining to be served of three-and-a-half years.

The time served on each count is 141 days. The credit is four months and 21 days. So just to be clear, the sentence is three years, ten months and 21 days, which leaves 3.5 years to be served. [ 36 ] In addition to that, there will be the previous orders that I have mentioned. Those are the restitution of $2200 under s. 738(1), the DNA order under s. 487.05, and the lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(3). [ 37 ] Are there any other matters that need to be dealt with? [ 38 ] MR. McLEOD: The victim fine surcharge, Your Honour.

That would be one that I would ask Your Honour to consider making payable forthwith. [ 39 ] THE COURT: Yes, those victim fine surcharges on each count will be payable forthwith, one day in default. [ 40 ] Mr. McLeod, anything further? [ 41 ] MR. McLEOD: No, Your Honour. [ 42 ] THE COURT: Mr. Corbett, do you understand the sentence? [ 43 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, sir. [ 44 ] THE COURT: Good luck, sir. I hope you come out of this and we don't see you again here. Good luck. [ 45 ] MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Your Honour. J.I. SOLOMON Provincial Court Judge