From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Adrian Stuerm "Back to Jail" Judgment Parsed   
      
   JCT: Just got a copy of the Adrian Stuerm decision of the   
   Quebec Court of Appeal. See previous posts for his main   
   arguments.   
      
                            COUR D'APPEL   
   PROVINCE DE QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE MONTREAL   
   No: 500-10-006454-175   
   No: 500-10-006442-170   
   No: 500-10-006451-171   
      
                           ADRIAN STUERM   
                                                Requerant/Accuse   
      
                                 c.   
      
                        SA MAJESTE LA REINE   
                                 et   
                    PROCUREURE GENERAL DU QUEBEC   
                                                       Intimees   
      
   CORAM: THE HONOURABLE LOUIS ROCHETTE, J.A.   
                         NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A.   
                         CLAUDE C. GAGNON, J.A.   
      
   No: 500-10-006442-170   
   APPELLANT   
   ADRIAN STUERM IN PERSON   
   RESPONDENTS   
   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
   Mtre. MAXIME LACOURCIERE Directeur des poursuites criminelles   
   et penales)   
   ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC   
   Mtre RUTH ARLESS-FRANDSEN (Bernard Roy)(Justice Quebec)   
      
   On appeal from a conviction pronounced on May 10 2017 by a   
   jury presided by the Honourable Alexandre Boucher of the   
   Superior Court, District of Montreal   
      
   DESCRIPTION:   
   No: 500-10-006442-170   
   Motion to dismiss summarily an appeal refered to the panel of   
   the Court by the Registrar on July 28 2017 (S.685 CCC)   
      
   No: 500-10-006454-175   
   Motion for leave to appeal against sentence   
      
   No: 500-10-006451-171   
   Motion of the Attorney General of Quebec to dismiss the   
   argument raising the unconstitutionality of the sentence   
   (S.365 C.p.c.)   
      
   BY THE COURT   
                              JUDGMENT   
      
       In respect of the verdict:   
       [1] At paragraphs [5] and [6] of the interlocutory   
       judgment at trial,   
      
   JCT: Since there were two interlocutory judgments at trial,   
   May 8 Charter and May 9 S.601 Criminal Code, wonder which one   
   he's talking about? He forgot to give the date so we'd know.   
   Looks almost like he doesn't know there are two, doesn't it?   
      
       in particular, that the appellant's constitutional   
       arguments were unfounded and frivolous in that he sought   
       to impugn a regulation that was not in force at the time   
       of the commission of the alleged offence.   
      
   JCT: Har har har. He's talking about the May 8 Charter motion   
   against the MMAR we were not appealing! Same mistake as made   
   by the Registrar. He should have read the Response before   
   sticking with his pre-determined decision. Especially after   
   caving on accepting his Response documents he then did not   
   read. As I explained earlier, without reading the Response, he   
   thinks this about only the May 8 Charter motion.   
      
       Furthermore, this is not a case of production of cannabis   
       for medical reasons.   
      
   JCT: See, a S.601 Quash Motion cites no no medical reasons   
   like needed to back a Charter Motion. Lucky for us, we're not   
   appealing that May 8 motion dealing with medical reasons. He   
   should have read both sides first. Very Per Incuriam. Oh,   
   that's what I said about the Clerk's decision too.   
      
       [2] None of the Appellant's submissions before us suggest   
       that the judge was mistaken in these views.   
      
   JCT: The one you did not look at shows that we agreed with the   
   judge's views in the May 8 ruling where I had cited the wrong   
   MMAR regime.   
      
   And that's why we're not appealing the May 8 judgment which   
   would have been frivolous and vexatious. Right, already said   
   that in the Response he accepted but then didn't read first.   
   Har har har har har har har har har.   
      
       [3] The Court is of the opinion that the appeal is   
       frivolous and should be summarily dismissed.   
      
   JCT: What can I say but he didn't have the right May 9   
   decision we really are appealing. Har har har. A judge.   
      
       FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT:   
       [4] GRANTS the motion to dismiss;   
       [5] DISMISSES the appeal.   
      
   JCT: He dismisses the appeal against the May 9 judgment   
   because appealing the May 8 judgment would be frivolous.   
      
       In respect of the sentence:   
       [6] At paragraph [10] of his reasons, the sentencing judge   
       concluded, after a careful weighing of the relevant   
       factors, that a prison sentence of six months was just and   
       reasonable in the circumstances. His conclusion and the   
       reasons given are unimpeachable given the applicable   
       standards of review on appeal.   
      
   JCT: What a lucky fluke that it just so happens that the 6   
   months mandatory minimum is exactly what he would have always   
   picked.   
      
       [7] The Court notes that the question as to the   
       unconstitutionality of the statutory minimum sentence was   
       not raised at first instance and no evidence was led to   
       sustain the appellant's current submissions.   
      
   JCT: Adrian did get the Elliott decision that came down after   
   his sentencing. So the Court know that mandatory minima are   
   unconstitutional in BC but are going to let him finish the   
   unconstitutional mandatory minimum because the judge said he'd   
   have landed on 6 months no matter if the mandatory minimum was   
   a month or nothing. It had no effect is the Court's   
   conclusion. Silly I say.   
      
       [8] In any event, the sentence imposed coincides with the   
       statutory minimum sentence fixed by Parliament to this   
       offence.   
      
   JCT: I think it's no coincidence is my point. I think the   
   judge felt he could not impose more than 6 months and the law   
   wouldn't let him impose less. Quite the unlucky coincidence.   
      
       The judge took note of that fact,   
      
   JCT: Yes, what a coincidence that I sentenced him to just what   
   happened to be the mandatory minimum. What a coincidence!   
      
       but observed that the six-month sentence he imposed   
       "aurait ete raisonable sans egard au minimum prescrit par   
       la lois (paragraph 10).   
       Jct: "would have been reasonable without regard to the   
       mandatory minimum prescribed by law."   
       We agree. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to   
       consider whether the statutory minimum sentence is   
       constitutional.   
      
   JCT: So because the judge said the mandatory minimum didn't   
   unreasonably influence him, Adrian can't complain about its   
   constitutionality. Simple argument, if the minimum had been 1   
   month, would he really have sentenced Adrian to 6 months for a   
   lousy 65-plant grow in his garage? Real Organized Crime   
   needing to be deterred?   
      
       FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT   
      
   JCT: didn't deal with the right appeal! Har har har.   
      
       [9] GRANTS the respondent's motion to dismiss the grounds   
       for appeal based on the unconstitutionality of the minimum   
       sentence for the offence.   
      
       [10] DISMISSES the motion for leave to appeal.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)