THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN DENNIS STEVEN KEY and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN CORAM: The Honourable Mr. Justice Vancise The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson COUNSEL: Mr. Key in person Ms. C. Snell, Q.C. for the Crown DISPOSITION: Appeal Heard: December 10, 1996 Appeal as to conviction dismissed: December 10, 1996 (orally) Appeal as to sentence allowed: December 10, 1996 (orally) Reasons: December 17, 1996 On Appeal From: Provincial Court Appeal File: 7046 Reasons by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane In concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Vancise The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson LANE J.A. The 21 year old appellant appeals his conviction on a charge of armed robbery pursuant to ss. 343(d) and 344 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a ten year s. 100 order. The appellant who was severely intoxicated at the time, was caught by clerk stealing several submarine sandwiches from convenience store. After being pulled back into the store by the clerk an altercation occurred between the clerk and the appellant. In the course of the dispute the appellant, while on his knees, was struck several times with baseball bat and ended up on the floor. The clerk sustained no physical injuries. The appellant then tried again to leave the convenience store with some of the submarine sandwiches while holding pocket-knife. He was arrested on the premises. The Crown concedes this was “technically robbery” and was at the low end of the scale of seriousness. We are all of the view the Crown is correct in characterizing the incident as “technically a robbery”. The appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed. We also agree with the Crown the robbery was at the low end on a scale of seriousness and what originally would have been a simple shop-lifting became more serious because of the altercation between the clerk and the appellant. In these circumstances it is appropriate to allow the sentence appeal and to reduce the sentence to one year incarceration with ten year section 100 order. The conviction appeal is therefore dismissed, the sentence appeal is allowed and a sentence of one year incarceration is imposed along with a ten year section 100 order.
The 21 year old appealed his conviction of armed robbery, the sentence of three years imprisonment and a ten year s.100 order. HELD: The conviction appeal was dismissed, the sentence appeal was allowed and one year incarceration with a ten year s100 order were imposed. The Crown was correct in characterizing the incident as technically a robbery which was at the low end of the scale of seriousness. What originally would have been a shop-lifting became more serious because of the altercation between the clerk and the appellant.