Shooting down his arguments that a trial judge exaggerated his criminal background, put too much blame on him and gave him an unfit sentence, the Alberta Appeal Court dismissed the appeal of one of the men responsible for the 2011 armed robbery of an
Shooting down his arguments that a trial judge exaggerated his criminal background, put too much blame on him and gave him an unfit sentence, the Alberta Appeal Court dismissed the appeal of one of the men responsible for the 2011 armed robbery of an Olds drugstore.
Wearing masks and brandishing firearms, Stanley Chad Cox and his son, both of Red Deer, entered the Rexall Drug Store on 50 Avenue on the evening of Feb. 1, 2011.
They quickly proceeded to the rear of the store, grabbing one of the store’s employees on the way, and demanded narcotics from a safe in the pharmacy.
The pair made off with a significant quantity of narcotic medication including OxyContin, amphetamines, morphine and codeine and were eventually arrested in Red Deer.
Cox, who was 46 at the time of the crime, was convicted in April 2012 on 45 charges relating to the robbery including robbery with a firearm, wearing a disguise with intent to commit a robbery and pointing a firearm.
He was sentenced to 10 years in prison but launched an appeal on the grounds that the trial judge made four errors when considering Cox’s sentence.
According to the appeal court decision, Cox argued that the judge "over-emphasized" Cox’s criminal record, erred in characterizing the robbery as sophisticated, mischaracterized Cox’s involvement in the crime and ultimately handed down an unreasonable sentence.
On the first point, Cox argued that although his criminal record began at the age of 16, there were long periods in his life when he had no convictions.
The appeal court disagreed with this argument, however, stating in its decision that "there was considerable evidentiary support for the judge’s assessment of (Cox’s) lifestyle and the unlikelihood of his rehabilitation" based on a record of more than 20 criminal convictions, including previous firearms and narcotics convictions, and numerous jail sentences.
As for Cox’s argument that he and his son Tyler—who was 22 at the time of the robbery and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for his role in the crime— had not planned out the robbery in a sophisticated manner, the appeal court found there was evidence, including the use of masks, a handgun and two vehicles including one that was stolen, to show the judge was right to characterize the robbery as sophisticated.
"There is no error in the judge’s conclusion about the nature of this robbery," the decision states.
Cox also countered the trial judge’s position during sentencing that Cox played a larger role in the robbery than his son by pointing to passages in the judge’s conviction decision that described the relationship between Cox and his son as equal.
The appeal court stated in its decision, however, that there was plenty of evidence to show Cox’s part in the robbery was larger than his son’s.
"These included the judge’s conclusion that (Cox) stole a vehicle for the robbery; took an employee to the back of the drugstore; pointed a handgun; and cleaned out the narcotics safe," the decision states.
Finally, the appeal court found Cox’s arguments that his sentence was unreasonable based on the reasoning that his son received a lighter sentence and 10 years was too long a sentence "unpersuasive."
"There were valid reasons for treating the appellant differently than his son," the appeal court’s decision states, as the judge "properly distinguished the son’s circumstances on several grounds, including his age, youth, confession, limited record, and remorse."
The appeal court also found that the trial judge and Crown acted properly in recommending and determining the 10-year sentence for Cox.
"We are not persuaded that the sentence was inappropriate, given the appellant’s previous record and the number and nature of the armed robbery, weapons and drug offences," the appeal court decision states.
At the end of its decision, the appeal court did chastise the Crown for laying so many charges against Cox.
"We wish to take this opportunity to caution against the practice of over-charging in this way," the court stated in its decision.
The court could not find a reason why the Crown charged Cox with careless use of a firearm since "the fact that a firearm was used in such a dangerous manner was absorbed in the wording of the robbery charge."
The court went on to state there are numerous problems with the Crown laying "redundant charges" such as the difficulties a trial judge may face when giving "comprehensive and coherent instructions" to a jury, the likelihood a jury may return "inconsistent verdicts when faced with so many counts," the possible distortion of a person’s criminal record and the possible erosion of the Crown’s reputation as a "fair and reasonable" entity.
"In our respectful view, Crown counsel would have been wise to take account of the facts and proceeded only with a precise set of charges that adequately represented the culpability of the appellant," the appeal court stated in its decision.
[email protected]
@paeverest
CHECK US OUT ON FACEBOOK!
