In this youth sentence appeal, the youth pleaded guilty to two counts of motor vehicle theft and to failure to comply with a youth sentence. He was sentenced to an 18-month custody and community supervision order, followed by 12 months of supervised probation and a 2-year driving prohibition. The youth sought leave to appeal before the Manitoba Court of Appeal. He appealed his sentence on the basis that the sentence was illegal, in part; the judge committed various errors in determining the sentence; and the sentence was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
The youth sentence appeal was based on a thorough and careful review on the sentencing judge’s decision.
Joshua Rogala argued the sentencing judge had made four errs:
- The maximum length of the sentence could only be 2 years according to section 42(14) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Therefore, the combination of the sanctions of an 18-month custody and community supervision order to be followed by 12 months of supervised probation was illegal.
- The judge had no jurisdiction to make an order prohibiting the young person from driving for 2 years.
- The judge failed to take into account pre-sentence detention contrary to section 38(3)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
- The judge didn’t consider relevant Gladue factors in imposing sentence contrary to section 38(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal agreed with Joshua Rogala’s arguments. The youth’s sentence was varied to one of a 14-month custody and community supervision order, followed by 9 months’ supervised probation. The driving prohibition imposed by the judge was set aside. The youth sentence appeal was successful.