Robbery, Break and enter a dwelling-house, Using an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, Disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence
R. v. Houle
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Paul Davis Houle pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a Kelowna residence, robbery, disguise with intent and using an imitation firearm, after he and another masked man entered an apartment with a knife and a pellet gun and pepper sprayed the occupants. The Crown sought five to seven years and the defence four and a half years. Justice Betton imposed five years before credit for 702 days of pre-sentence custody, citing his rehabilitative efforts in custody and remorse against a lengthy record that includes prior robberies.
In the judge's words
1I would indicate that, but for those positive things, the mitigating factors, and Mr. Houle's response while in the custody, the sentence that I would impose would certainly be higher than what I am going to impose.
The record
- Convicted of
- Robbery (CC 344)
- Break and enter a dwelling-house (CC 348(1)(d))
- Using an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence (CC 85(2))
- Disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence (CC 351(2))
- Prior convictions
- 49 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 4 years and 6 months in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: D. Grabavac
Defence: J.D. Watt
Sources
- R. v. Houle, 2022 BCSC 1061 Court decision, CanLII, April 20, 2022
[2] The Crown argues that a global sentence before consideration of credit for any time served of five to seven years is appropriate.
[2] … The defence position is that four-and-a-half years is an appropriate sentence.
[1] THE COURT: Mr. Paul Davis Houle is before me for sentencing having pled guilty to four offences that were committed on July 15, 2019.
[10] The full details of the record are contained in an exhibit, the JUSTIN conviction report. The Crown summarized that evidence, I believe, accurately. I will reference a part of that relying on the Crown's calculations. It shows 49 prior convictions, 17 prior probation orders.
[45] I would indicate that, but for those positive things, the mitigating factors, and Mr. Houle's response while in the custody, the sentence that I would impose would certainly be higher than what I am going to impose.
[46] In my view, when all of the factors and considerations are taken into account with the benefit of the various authorities, an appropriate sentence before any credit for time served is five years. I would impose that as follows: on Count 1, four years; on Count 2, four years concurrent; on Count 5, one year concurrent; and on Count 7, one year consecutive. … I accept the proposition that Mr. Houle is entitled to credit for 468 days at a ratio of 1.5 to one which translates, again accepting the math of counsel, to 702 days.
- R. v. Houle, 2022 BCSC 1061 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia