2012 NBCA 98, 2012 NBCA 98

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 100-12-CA CHARLES JOSEPH LEBLANC APPELLANT CHARLES JOSEPH LEBLANC APPELANT - and - - et - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE INTIMÉE LeBlanc v. R., 2012 NBCA 98 LeBlanc c.

R., 2012 NBCA 98 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Deschênes The Honourable Justice Richard The Honourable Justice Bell CORAM : L’honorable juge Deschênes L’honorable juge Richard L’honorable juge Bell Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: July 6, 2012 – Conviction Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 6 juillet 2012 (déclaration de culpabilité) History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: 2012 NBQB 231 Décision frappée d’appel : 2012 NBQB 231 , 2012 NBBR 231 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S.O.

Appeal heard: November 15, 2012 Appel entendu : Le 15 novembre 2012 Judgment rendered: December 6, 2012 Jugement rendu : Le 6 décembre 2012

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Charles Joseph LeBlanc appeared in person For the respondent: Christopher Lavigne Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelant : Charles Joseph LeBlanc a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : Christopher Lavigne THE COURT The application for leave to appeal the conviction is dismissed. LA COUR La demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la déclaration de culpabilité est rejetée. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [1] Charles Joseph LeBlanc seeks leave to appeal a decision of the

Summary Conviction Appeal Court, dated July 6, 2012, dismissing his appeal from conviction on a charge of causing a disturbance in a public place (s. 175(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code ). In the Court of Queen’s Bench, Mr. LeBlanc had been seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing his plea in the Provincial Court had been “uninformed and involuntary.” The

Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge applied the law as set out in Miller v. R. , 2011 NBCA 52 , 374 N.B.R. (2d) 302 , Chiasson v. R. , 2008 NBCA 36 , [2008] N.B.J. No. 171 (QL) , and other cases, and came to the conclusion that, on the facts, Mr. LeBlanc had not demonstrated that his plea was “uninformed or not voluntarily made.” [2] Section 839(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code provides that an appeal only lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the

Summary Conviction Appeal Court on a question of law alone . Time and again, this Court has stated that “the withdrawal of a guilty plea involves a question of mixed law and fact”: Miller , at para. 6, and the cases cited therein. In the circumstances of this case, we would have no jurisdiction to allow this appeal if leave were granted, because the issues raised do not involve a question of law alone. For these reasons, we dismiss Mr. LeBlanc’s application for leave to appeal.

________________________________ ALEXANDRE DESCHÊNES, J.A. ________________________________ J.C. MARC RICHARD, J.A. ________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A.