) ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – v. –, 2010 ONSC 2567

CITATION : R. v. Kuenzler, 2010 ONSC 2567 COURT FILE NO.: 1-596610 DATE: 20100504 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – John Preston Kuenzler ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Eric L. Gilman, for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Ira Book, counsel for the Defendant ) ) HEARD: February 16, 17, March 3, 4, 12, April 6 and 7, 2010 Kiteley J. Reasons for decision [ 1 ] Mr. Kuenzler is charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine, four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and three counts of possession of proceeds of crime.

In reasons for decision dated March 3, 2010, I dismissed the application to quash the search warrants. Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, I found Mr. Kuenzler guilty of four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking. [ 2 ] On the remaining charges, the primary defence is identification. Counsel for Mr. Kuenzler takes the position that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Kuenzler was the person in the Ford Explorer on November 8 th , 2007 or that he was the person in the Hyundai on November 22 nd , 2007. For the reasons that follow, I find Mr.

Kuenzler guilty of the trafficking charges and two of three proceeds of crime charges. Background: [ 3 ] Officer Christopher Tracey was undercover in Project Shinobi. In August 2007, he began to develop a relationship with Atiba Ralph, the front end. Officer Tracey also knew Mr. Ralph by the name Blackus Ninja. Between the initial contact and the events in early November, 2007, Officer Tracey made several buys of increasing volume and price. The goal was to get to Mr. Ralph’s supplier, the back end. [ 4 ] On November 8 th , Officer Tracey arranged a rendezvous at Jane and Finch.

He purchased crack cocaine from Mr. Ralph and asked if Mr. Ralph could get powder cocaine. Mr. Ralph left the officer’s car and went into a variety store. When he returned, Mr. Ralph directed the officer where to drive. While on the 401, Mr. Ralph received a call and told the caller that they were on their way. They exited at Kennedy Road and entered the parking lot of the Kennedy Commons Plaza at Kennedy Road and Hwy. 401. The officer parked the car. Mr. Ralph said he would meet his contact, go for a short ride, count the money and his contact would drop him off and Mr. Ralph would give him the drugs. Mr.

Ralph walked towards the Chapters book store. Within a few minutes, Mr. Ralph got back into the officer’s car and told him to drive and he pointed out a Ford Explorer that was in the lot. They drove to a point just south of the Explorer and the officer stopped his vehicle. Mr. Ralph got out of the car with the buy money of $1250 and he walked over to the Explorer. He sat in the front passenger seat of the Explorer for a few moments. At approx 7:40 p.m. Mr. Ralph returned to the officer’s vehicle with approx 28 grams of powder cocaine. It is alleged that Mr.

Kuenzler was the driver of the Explorer. [ 5 ] On November 22 nd , the officer arranged to meet Mr. Ralph and then drive to Scarborough expecting to make a sizeable purchase of powder cocaine. On the instructions of Mr. Ralph, Officer Tracey drove to the same plaza at Kennedy Road and Hwy. 401. Mr. Ralph directed him where to park. Mr. Ralph received a call and within a few minutes, a dark coloured Hyundai pulled up in front of Chapters. Officer Tracey did not want to part with his money before he saw what he was buying. Although he resisted, Mr. Ralph left the officer’s vehicle and walked to the Hyundai.

When he returned, he brought a white powder chunk unwrapped as a sample. Officer Tracey gave him $10350. At approx 8:45 p.m. Mr. Ralph walked back to the Hyundai and returned with the balance of the drugs, making a total of 9 ounces. It is alleged that Mr. Kuenzler was the driver of the Hyundai. Identification Evidence:

[ 6 ] Defence counsel challenges the reliability of the identification evidence. I will review the evidence of the officers touching on that point. A. Officer Tracey [ 7 ] On November 8 th , Officer Tracey said that the Explorer was driven by a male white who looked like he had a ponytail but he was not sure. B. Officer Roger Swart [ 8 ] Officer Swart was a member of the surveillance team on November 8 th . He described how the events unfolded and what brought them to the Kennedy Commons Mall. He drove his vehicle into the parking lot where he was able to observe Officer Tracey’s vehicle. He observed that Mr.

Ralph was out of the vehicle and walked toward a Ford Explorer that he said was tan coloured with licence AZFA 445. He said that Mr. Ralph got into the front seat. Officer Swart drove by the Explorer and at one point was as little as two feet away from the driver. He described the driver as male white clean shaven with dark hair in a pony tail. [ 9 ] On November 12 th he was shown a line up of photos. Officer Leduc opened a sealed envelope and instructed him to look at each photo individually and point out any he knew. He picked out photo #7 of Mr.

Kuenzler and inserted his note that that was the person who had met with Mr. Ralph at the mall and he was driving an SUV with big wheels and he was the only occupant in the vehicle. He initialled the photo with his badge number and signed it. At the trial, he identified his initials on the photograph. He also said that he remembered the Explorer because of its distinctive after market wheels. [ 10 ] On December 19, 2007, he was involved in surveillance in the vicinity of 36 Knockbolt. At 3:26 p.m. he observed Mr. Kuenzler go to his vehicle after walking his dogs. At 4:03 p.m. he observed Mr.

Kuenzler exit the front door of the residence, enter the garage through the side door and back the Explorer out of the garage and drive away. Officer Swart said that Mr. Kuenzler was driving the same Explorer with the fancy aftermarket wheels. [ 11 ] In cross-examination, he was asked about the details of the events in the parking lot on November 8 th . He agreed that the sun had gone down but there was ambient light and storefront lighting. Before he drove by the Explorer, he was stationary about 4 or 5 car lengths away.

When he first observed the Explorer he was 15 – 20 feet away and he was using binoculars. [ 12 ] He was also questioned about the photo line-up. Exhibit 4 was a package containing various briefing notes. He was shown page 4 of that package which was a briefing sheet dated 2007-11-09 and it contained a picture of Mr. Kuenzler. He agreed that the photograph at page 4 was the same shot as photo #7 in the line-up. He denied having seen the photo at page 4 of the briefing sheet prior to the line-up on November 12 th .

He explained that he had worked the evening shift on November 8 th and the day shift on November 9 th . He had reported off duty at 4:00 p.m. on November 9 th and came back on November 12 th at 4:00. At 5:30 p.m. on November 12 th he was shown the photo line up. He insisted that between 4:00 and 5:30 p.m. he had not reviewed the briefing note dated 2007-11-09 because those are not reviewed until the briefing before the team goes on the road. He said that there was no briefing on November 12 th because there was no investigation and no surveillance on the targets. C. Det. Const. Singh [ 13 ] Det. Const.

Singh was the Officer in Charge on November 8 th . He conducted a briefing at 2:10 p.m. during which he issued a briefing sheet that included the objective that day which was to do surveillance on Mr. Ralph’s back end. He described the surveillance during the late afternoon and evening. [ 14 ] On Friday November 9 th , he received a photo line up from Det. Brammell. He put it in a secure location. On November 12 th at 5:00 p.m., he gave that photo line up to Det. Const. Leduc. [ 15 ] On November 22 nd , 2007, Det. Const. Singh was a member of the surveillance crew.

He described how he had prepared the briefing sheet that included the photograph of T3, namely Mr. Kuenzler. He was in the parking lot outside Chapters at the Kennedy Commons Mall. He observed the dark sports car that Mr. Ralph had entered. He drove by that vehicle and observed the driver as a male white wearing a black jacket with white stripes. He recognized him as T3. He identified Mr. Kuenzler as the driver of the sports car. [ 16 ] On December 6 th , Det. Const. Singh was on duty and trying to locate Mr. Kuenzler’s home address. He received information that indicated Mr.

Kuenzler had a fitness studio at 36 Knockbolt. At about 8:35 p.m. that evening, he went to 36 Knockbolt and observed a green Ford Explorer with the same licence plate (as had been seen on November 9 th ) and a black Hyundai with the same licence plate (as had been seen on November 22 nd ). D. Officer Denis Leduc [ 17 ] Officer Leduc worked with the TPS drug squad in the fall of 2007. On November 12 th , he was asked to administer the photo line-up. He identified Exhibit 3 as the envelope he had received from Det. Const. Singh at 5:00 p.m. On November 12 th , 2007, he opened the envelope at 5:20 p.m.

He met with Officer Swart at 5:30 p.m. He read the instructions that appear on the Line-up Report. He did not have his daily notes at the trial so he was working from memory and custom. He thought that the photographs had been arranged in order of 1 – 12. Within one minute Officer Swart picked out photo #7 and initialled it. [ 18 ] In cross-examination, he said that there was no video room in the drug squad and therefore no video of the photo line-up. He also said that he probably had laid out the photographs one at a time because that was the practice at the time.

When Officer Swart picked #7, he stopped showing the other photos. He agreed that page 4 of Exhibit 4 contained a black and white version of the coloured

photo #7 in Exhibit 3. [ 19 ] Officer Leduc was also asked about the function of the briefing sheets. He agreed that they reflect the accumulated information that had been obtained up to that point and to ensure that all members of the team were current. On November 12 th , they weren’t working Project Shinobi. He agreed that on November 9 th he could have looked at the briefing note that contained the same photo but if he had seen it before he would not have told Officer Swart. E. Detective Michael Brammell [ 20 ] On November 8 th , 2007, Det. Brammell was the designated team leader or road boss.

Target #1 was Atiba Ralph. The purpose of the surveillance that day was to identify his back end. He was part of the crew following Officer Tracey and Mr. Ralph. At 7:37 p.m. he followed Officer Tracey off the 401 at Kennedy Rd. into the plaza. He observed Officer Tracey park and get out of his vehicle, go into the trunk and get back into the driver’s seat. He observed Mr. Ralph get out of the passenger seat and walk south toward the Chapters store. About two minutes later, he observed Mr. Ralph walk back to Officer Tracey’s vehicle and get in the front passenger seat.

Officer Tracey moved southbound and stopped just north of the front entrance to the plaza. [ 21 ] About a minute later, Mr. Ralph exited Officer Tracey’s vehicle again and walked toward a tan coloured Ford Explorer that was parked near the front entrance of Chapters. Mr. Ralph got into the front passenger seat of the Explorer with licence plate AZFA445. [ 22 ] Det. Brammell drove his vehicle past the Ford Explorer. He said he would have been as close as 10 feet away. He described the driver as male white clean shaven with dark hair in a ponytail.

He could only see the upper part of his body because he was in the driver’s seat. [ 23 ] The driver of the Explorer was designated as Target #3. Based on a licence plate search, T3 was tentatively identified as John Kuenzler. On November 9 th , Det. Brammell was asked by Det. Const. Garland to prepare a photo line-up for presentation to Officer Swart. He assembled 12 photographs and gave the package to Det. Const. Singh. [ 24 ] On November 22 nd , Det. Brammell was again a member of the team. There were 11 surveillance officers plus Officer Tracey. From the point of the rendezvous with Mr. Ralph, Det.

Brammell followed Officer Tracey’s vehicle to the same plaza at Kennedy and 401. He set up observations near the Chapters store. At 8:41 p.m. he observed Mr. Ralph exit Officer Tracey’s vehicle and walk up to a dark sports car parked in front of Chapters. Mr. Ralph got into the passenger side. At 8:43, Mr. Ralph left that car and returned to Officer Tracey’s vehicle. Det. Brammell received information that the dark sports car was moving and then he observed it park in front of the Chapters. At 8:44, Mr. Ralph got out of Officer Tracey’s vehicle with a blue nylon bag that contained the buy money. Mr.

Ralph walked toward the dark vehicle and got in the front passenger seat. About a minute later, he got out of the dark vehicle and walked back and got into the front passenger seat of Officer Tracey’s vehicle. He observed Officer Tracey get out of his vehicle and place the blue nylon bag back into his trunk. He saw the dark vehicle drive away eastbound and then northbound. [ 25 ] On December 6 th , having received information that Mr. Kuenzler may be residing at 36 Knockbolt, Det. Brammell went to that address and saw the Ford Explorer in the driveway. On December 7 th , he observed Mr.

Kuenzler walking his dogs. [ 26 ] At 11:52 p.m. on December 17 th , Det. Brammell observed Mr. Kuenzler in the living room of 36 Knockbolt with 2 Rottweilers. He said Mr. Kuenzler’s hair was long. Shortly after midnight the lights on the second floor went on and 6 minutes later, all the lights in the house went out. [ 27 ] On December 18 th at 3:29 p.m. Det. Brammell observed Mr. Kuenzler exiting the front door of 36 Knockbolt with a dog. He put the dog in a red Plymouth Voyager then drove through a residential area to a school where he walked the dog in the field. His hair was in a ponytail.

After he returned to Knockbolt, a visitor arrived. At 4:15, Mr. Kuenzler exited the front door, got into the Ford Explorer and drove to Premier Fitness Gym. [ 28 ] On December 19 th just after 2:00 p.m. he observed Mr. Kuenzler outside an address in Ajax where they had followed him. He exited an industrial unit and got into the Ford Explorer. He followed him back to 36 Knockbolt where he drove into the garage. Det. Brammell did not see Mr. Kuenzler enter the house but shortly thereafter he saw him exit the front door and was with the two Rotweillers.

He got into the red Plymouth van and was followed to the lot where he walked the dogs. Following his return, Det. Brammell observed him park in the driveway and enter the house through the front door with the dogs. Just after 4:00 p.m. he observed Mr. Kuenzler exit the front door alone. He got into the Explorer and left. He returned about 10 minutes later but left again before 5:00 p.m. [ 29 ] Throughout his observations of Mr. Kuenzler, he never observed another male driving the Ford Explorer although he thought that one day a female may have driven it. [ 30 ] He identified Mr.

Kuenzler as the person he referred to as T3. [ 31 ] In cross-examination, Det. Brammell said that on November 8 th it was dark but there was significant lighting in the parking lot. He estimated the light standards were 40 to 50 feet tall. [ 32 ] Det. Brammell was cross-examined extensively on the logistics of his observations on November 8 th . He said that when Mr. Ralph left Officer Tracey’s vehicle for the second time, he was approx 50’ to 100’ away from that vehicle and about the same distance from the Ford Explorer. [ 33 ] When Mr. Ralph walked to the Explorer for the second time, Det.

Brammell’s vehicle was stationary behind the Explorer that

had stopped in front of the Chapters store. Det. Brammell was looking into the Explorer from the rear. During the approximate 2 minutes that Mr. Ralph was in the Explorer, Det. Brammell was not stationary. He did a drive by of the Ford Explorer. He said that he had observed Mr. Ralph and Mr. Kuenzler through the front window of the Explorer from a distance of 10’. At the preliminary Inquiry, he said that he had observed Mr. Kuenzler through the driver’s window of the Explorer. When pressed as to whether he had made the observations of Mr.

Kuenzler through the front window or the driver’s window of the Explorer, he said both. [ 34 ] As for the duration of Det. Brammell’s observation of Mr. Kuenzler, he said the drive by took 5 or 6 seconds. He was driving slowly but not a crawl. [ 35 ] In cross-examination, Det. Brammell was asked about the preparation of the photo line up. Having associated John Kuenzler with the Ford Explorer, MTP had a file photo of him. Det. Brammell used MTP data bases to create a query of people with similar characteristics so that he could prepare 12 photos similar to the file photo of Mr. Kuenzler.

He used the height, weight, hair colour, race and age in the Lineup Report. He had described Mr. Kuenzler as clean shaven yet several of the photos were not clean shaven or had some growth. He explained that while Mr. Kuenzler appeared clean shaven on November 8th, the file photo indicated some facial growth. He decided to compare photos with similar facial hair. [ 36 ] In re-examination, Det. Brammell identified the Line-Up Report descriptors. He said he had looked for comparators with dark hair and sparse facial hair.

He was also referred to the standard instructions to the person viewing the line-up to the effect that hair styles and appearances may have changed. Analysis: [ 37 ] The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based on sympathy or prejudice. It is based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

The Crown need not meet a standard of absolute certainty or establish guilt beyond any doubt. I must be sure of Mr. Kuenzler’s guilt. [ 38 ] In a case involving circumstantial evidence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilt of the defendant is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the proven facts. [1] [ 39 ] Inference must be distinguished from conjecture or speculation. There can be no inference unless there are objective facts from which to infer the other facts which it is sought to establish.

In some cases the other facts can be inferred with as much practical certainty as if they had been actually observed. In other cases the inference does not go beyond reasonable probability. [2] A. Identification of Mr. Kuenzler [ 40 ] The identification of Mr. Kuenzler by Officer Swart is key. In R. v . Powell [3] , T. Ducharme J. referenced the inherent frailties of eyewitness identification evidence and he outlined the considerations in assessing such evidence. I will apply those factors to the evidence. [ 41 ] Officer Swart observed the Ford Explorer and the driver on the evening of November 8 th .

He reviewed the photo line-up during the early evening of November 12 th . The short delay is reasonable. There is less risk of error in that short time span. If Officer Leduc had seen page 4 of the briefing note before he administered the photo line-up, I am satisfied that he did not influence Officer Swart in picking photo #7. The transaction occurred after dark in November. However, there was considerable lighting in the parking lot. Officer Swart was as close as two feet when he observed the driver of the Explorer. His opportunity to observe the driver was brief but it was focused.

He drove by with the specific intent of seeing the driver. The description Officer Swart gave was brief and could be considered generic but for the pony tail. That description was the same as Det. Brammell provided. Officer Swart was not a victim of an offence. He was a professional who was present with other team members for the specific purpose of identifying the back end, the person with whom Mr. Ralph met.

He was not unwittingly thrown into a crisis where he had only a brief opportunity to have a fleeting glance. [ 42 ] The recommendations of the Sophonow Inquiry as to presenting a photo line-up have been largely followed. Det. Brammell assembled 12 photos. The quality is reasonably good bearing in mind that they are MTP photos. T3 was described as clean shaven but in the photo he has light facial hair. The decision to compare him with others with light facial hair was reasonable. The line-up was created by Det. Brammell who was knowledgeable and a part of the investigation. But it was then handed to Det. Const.

Singh and he gave it to Officer Leduc. Officer Leduc read from the printed instructions. He believed he presented the photos sequentially because that was how it was done at that time. Other than to read the instructions, present the photos and have Officer Swart complete the identification details, he had no discussion with him. The photo line-up was not video-taped or audio-taped. Officer Swart said that there was no video room available.

Except for the lack of video or audio, the creation, storage, presentation and documenting of this photo line-up was appropriate. [ 43 ] I am satisfied that the photo line-up was fair and the identification by Officer Swart is reliable. [ 44 ] There is considerable other confirmatory evidence including Det. Brammell’s observations on November 8 th . I accept his evidence that he drove by slowly and had a visual on Mr. Kuenzler for 5 or 6 seconds through both the driver’s window and the front window of the Explorer depending on where he was. His purpose was to identify the driver.

He was focused, not distracted by other circumstances. He was not under the kind of stress that victims experience. He is a trained observer. His description is the same as that of Officer Swart. There was considerable overhead and storefront lighting in the lot. [ 45 ] When the reliable photo line-up is considered with other confirmatory evidence of Det. Brammell, Officer Swart and Det. Const. Singh, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the identity of Mr. Kuenzler as the driver of the Explorer on November 8 th , 2007 and the driver of the Hyundai on November 22 nd , 2007 beyond a reasonable doubt.

A. Trafficking [ 46 ] Having made that finding, the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Kuenzler was in both vehicles because he was dealing in cocaine. He was Mr. Ralph’s back end. Although he wasn’t observed handling the cocaine or the buy money, the circumstantial evidence points to his role in the transactions. [ 47 ] Counsel for the defendant stressed that the evidence of Mr. Ralph must be considered. As I observed in my ruling on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, Mr. Ralph was in the witness stand for less than 10 minutes.

The Crown asked him if he recalled completing transactions for selling crack cocaine in the latter half of 2007. He said no. He asked if that meant he didn’t recall or he didn’t do it. He said he didn’t recall and he didn’t do it. He was asked if he recalled completing a transaction where he sold powder cocaine on November 8, 2007 and he said he didn’t sell any cocaine on any occasion. He was asked if he kept a diary or a journal and he said no. He was asked if he had any specific recollection what he was doing on November 8, 2007 and he said he had 4 kids, he didn’t recall and he was probably babysitting.

He was asked if he had any recall or memory of events on November 22, 2007 and he said he didn’t recall. He was asked if he went by the name of Blackus Ninja and he said that that was his musician name. There was no cross- examination. [ 48 ] In that ruling I noted that Mr. Ralph was not rude or resistant but he was clearly an unco-operative witness. I observed that it would have been prudent for the Crown to have asked questions about whether he had ever met with the undercover officer and whether he had ever said what the officer attributed to him.

However, based on the evidence he did give and my observations of him, I had no doubt that he would have denied ever meeting the officer and would have denied saying anything to him. [ 49 ] In the days before appearing at this trial, Mr. Ralph had attended the Preliminary inquiry into charges against him for some of the transactions. It was not a surprise that he refused to give this court any meaningful evidence. I found that the Crown had established necessity and reliability and I allowed the Crown to introduce certain statements attributed to Mr.

Ralph. [ 50 ] The evidence of the undercover officer and the surveillance officers who testified is irrefutable that Mr. Ralph was involved in the transactions beginning in August (which are not the subject matter of the offences involving Mr. Kuenzler) and in the transactions on November 8 th and 22 nd . The Crown probably had a duty to call Mr. Ralph as a witness. However, given his refusal to provide any meaningful evidence and the highly persuasive evidence of the officers, the only reasonable inference to draw is that Mr. Ralph dealt with Mr. Kuenzler on November 8 th and November 22 nd , 2007 and that Mr.

Kuenzler trafficked in powder cocaine on both occasions. [ 51 ] I find the defendant guilty of counts 1 and 3. B. Possession of Proceeds of Crime [ 52 ] In count 9, it is alleged that on January 23, 2008, Mr. Kuenzler was in possession of $2990 in Canadian currency and $130 in US currency as proceeds of crime. Those funds were seized when the search warrant was executed. The Crown does not pursue that charge, realistically recognizing that there is no evidence to establish that those funds were related to unlawful activity.

There will be an acquittal on count 9. [ 53 ] In count 2, it is alleged that on November 8 th , 2007, Mr. Kuenzler was in possession of $1250 as proceeds of crime. In count 4, it is alleged that on November 22 nd , 2007, he was in possession of $10,350 as proceeds of crime. There is no direct evidence that Mr. Kuenzler ever had possession of those funds. The money was given by Officer Tracey to Mr. Ralph. The bills were marked. Marked bills were not seized when the warrant was executed.

The currency used by Officer Tracey was never recovered. [ 54 ] A finding of guilty on these offences can only be based on circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only reasonable inference is that on each occasion, Mr. Ralph gave the money to Mr. Kuenzler. [ 55 ] The evidence on which such an inference can be drawn includes the following. On both occasions, Mr. Ralph gave instructions to Officer Tracey where to go for the rendezvous with his supplier. Mr. Ralph was seen getting into the Explorer and getting into the Hyundai at times when Mr.

Kuenzler was the driver. Mr. Ralph took the buy money and came back with the drugs. Within weeks of the two buys, the various observations of Mr. Kuenzler at 36 Knockbolt indicate that he was living there, where, as indicated in the Agreed Statement of Facts, drugs and his passport were found. The hearsay statements by Mr. Ralph that I found to be admissible through Officer Tracey that are summarized in Exhibit C indicate that the person they were going to meet was his dealer.

I am persuaded that the evidence discloses beyond a reasonable doubt that there is ample justification from which to infer that on November 8 th , 2007 Mr. Kuenzler was in possession of $1250 and on November 22 nd , 2007 he was in possession of $10350 as proceeds of the trafficking transactions. [ 56 ] I enter a finding of guilty on counts 2 and 4. Kiteley J. Released: May 4, 2010

CITATION: R. v. Kuenzler 2010 ONSC 2567 COURT FILE NO.: 1-596610 DATE: 20100504 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Her Majesty the Queen – and – John Preston Kuenzler REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Kiteley J. Released: May 4, 2010