Not every case goes to trial. Many clients express remorse for their criminal behavior early in the process and are intent on pleading guilty. Many want to simply move on with their life and put the ugly criminal chapter behind them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. In such cases, we focus on damage control and ask: are we able to neutralize the facts that will be read in? How low of a sentence can be obtained with regard to the circumstances of the offence and the specific offender? There are many advantages to pleading guilty; they are all dependent upon the particular facts of your case. Often jail sentences can be reduced or avoided by virtue of an expedient plea. Below is a sampling of some results that were achieved on guilty pleas or sentence hearings.
HIGH PROFILE CASES
- R. v. W. (IMPAIRED DRIVING, DANGEROUS PLEAS)
The Criminal Code contains mandatory minimum sentences for all impaired driving offences. This means that upon conviction, the Court is required to impose a specific minimum sentence, irrespective of the client’s age, clean record, employment, family situation or...
- R. v. K. (IMPAIRED DRIVING, DANGEROUS PLEAS)
The client retained Mr. Lewandowski after he was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident and evading police. As part of his penalty, the trial judge imposed a six month driving prohibition. The Criminal Code sets out periods of “prohibition”, where the accused is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle anywhere in Canada.
- R. v. J. (IMPAIRED DRIVING, DANGEROUS PLEAS)
The client was accused of five counts of attempted murder along with dangerous driving. “Dangerous” driving is perhaps an understatement. He was accused of driving while chasing another vehicle at high speeds, as his passenger fired off several rounds from the backseat.
- R. v. S. (SEXUAL ASSAULT PLEAS)
The client was charged with 36 counts of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, all in the context of “grooming” two prepubescent boys. The Crown’s position after trial was for penitentiary time of upwards of 10 years of jail.
- R. v. A. (SEXUAL ASSAULT PLEAS)
In some cases, a trial can be used to mitigate the facts. Many clients come forward and say that some of what the Crown alleges is accurate, but most of it is not. In these types of cases, unless the Crown is prepared to “reduce” the facts, then an impasse is quickly reached.
- R. v. J. (SEXUAL ASSAULT PLEAS)
Often a client is accused of numerous offences, when only half of the information underlying the charges is true, whereas the other half isn’t. In this particular case, the client was accused by his wife of shooting her with a “BB” gun.
- R. v. N. (SEXUAL ASSAULT PLEAS)
The client retained Mr. Lewandowski to after being convicted of a charge of sexual assault for raping a young female stranger. An offence of this nature would typically mandate a period of jail between 3 and 7 years, however, the Crown was seeking a “dangerous offender” designation due to the client’s past criminal record.
- R. v. C. (DRUG OFFENCE PLEAS)
The Court of Appeal has held that the standard sentencing tariff on a cocaine trafficking charge is between 6 months and two years of jail, even for a first time offender. In this case, the client was accused of trafficking crack cocaine on two occassions.
- R. v. J. (DRUG OFFENCE PLEAS)
The Crown will often cite the principle of “parity” during a sentencing hearing. This principles holds that offenders with similar offences should be given similar sentences.
- R. v. S. (DRUG OFFENCE PLEAS)
Many people who appear before the Courts have experienced a tragic upbringing and are not the hardened criminals that the Crown attempts to paint them as. The full history of the accused is essential to ensure that the Judge imposing sentence is being given the full picture.
- R. v. K. (DOMESTIC ASSAULT PLEAS)
The accused was charged with aggravated assault against his wife. It was alleged that he threw her off a bed and repeatedly punched her, causing a spinal injury.
- R. v. M. (DOMESTIC ASSAULT PLEAS)
The accused and two other men were accused of sexually assaulting the accused’s girlfriend at a house party. All of them had been consuming ecstasy.
- R. v. D. (DOMESTIC ASSAULT PLEAS)
The accused was alleged to have broken into his ex-girlfriend’s residence, stolen various items and pawned them for drug money. On the second occasion, she caught him in the act.
CONTACT US TODAY!
Paul Lewandowski Professional Corporation
200 Elgin St., Suite 901 Ottawa, ON K2P 1L5