COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Blazevic, 2015 ONCA 789
DATE: 20151118
DOCKET: C55656
MacPherson, Tulloch and Pardu JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Michael Blazevic
Appellant
Brad Burgess, for the appellant
David Finley, for the respondent
Heard: November 16, 2015
On appeal from the conviction entered on January 9, 2012 and the sentence imposed on February 1, 2012 by Justice Leonard Ricchetti of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant Michael Blazevic was convicted of three firearms offences and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence (unlawful confinement) by Richetti J. of the Superior Court of Justice on January 9, 2012. He received a global sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, after credit for 75 days of pre-sentence custody.
[2] The appellant appeals both the conviction and sentence.
[3] On the conviction appeal, the appellant submits that his convictions for the three firearms offences were unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had knowledge of the presence of the firearm in the driver’s side door pocket.
[4] We do not accept this submission. The factual context here is important. The appellant and his associates were on the brink of attempting to commit a kidnapping. They had weapons to assist in committing this offence. There was strong evidence that the appellant had knowledge of the zippered case containing the firearm. The trial judge listed nine pieces of evidence on this issue, including the appellant’s admission that he was the driver of the car, the fact that the appellant had another weapon (a knife) as well as handcuffs and repellant spray in a satchel on his person, and the proximity of the firearm to the driver’s seat of the car. The trial judge concluded:
The totality of the evidence must be considered. When all of the evidence is considered as a whole, there is no reasonable doubt Mr. Blazevic had knowledge of the firearm in the driver’s door pocket.
We agree.
[5] On the sentence appeal, the appellant asserts that the ten year sentence was too harsh for two reasons: (1) the trial judge overemphasized the appellant’s convictions in 2000 for armed robbery and forcible confinement; and (2) he failed to properly consider the principle of rehabilitation.
[6] We would not give effect to these submissions. There was nothing wrong with the trial judge taking into account the previous armed robbery/forcible confinement convictions and referring to the “raw brutality towards the victims” in that incident. This is particularly so in light of the fact that the trial judge was sentencing the appellant for an aborted kidnapping and confinement of a wealthy person with a view to extracting money from him. The proposed criminal activity in 2010 was similar in purpose, and in likely violence, to the criminal activity that led to his convictions in 2000.
[7] On rehabilitation, the trial judge said:
Mr. Blazevic’s record is not the record of someone who has reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Blazevic has any prospects for rehabilitation.
[8] The appellant says that this conclusion is too harsh. We disagree. Although there are longer and more serious criminal records than the appellant’s, the armed robbery/unlawful confinement offences for which he was convicted in 2000, and especially the facts underlying those convictions, and the imminent criminal activity which led to the 2012 convictions, taken together, amply justify the trial judge’s bleak conclusion on rehabilitation.
[9] The conviction and sentence appeals are dismissed.
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”
“M. Tulloch J.A.”
“G. Pardu J.A.”