Whitehorse Daily Star

Man’s sentence was excessive, court told

The Yukon Court of Appeal has heard arguments that sentencing for a man convicted of a string of crimes including robbery was inappropriately harsh.

By Emily Blake on May 23, 2017

The Yukon Court of Appeal has heard arguments that sentencing for a man convicted of a string of crimes including robbery was inappropriately harsh.

Appellant lawyer Vincent Larochelle argued last Thursday that Shannon Stein’s seven-year sentence was unfair, and that Justice Donald Luther made several errors in his decision.

Stein was sentenced in July 2016 for robbery, being unlawfully in a dwelling, and two counts of assault with a weapon. He also pled guilty to several counts of theft, and possession of property obtained by crime.

“The sentence he composed is completely out of range for what similar offenders in the Yukon receive,” argued Larochelle.

He noted that Stein’s co-accused, Janine Firth, only received a sentence of three years for charges of robbery, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and unlawfully being in a dwelling.

Crown counsel Amy Porteous, however, said the sentence is well within the range, and that the Court of Appeal should not interfere with the discretion of the sentencing judge.

Stein and Firth were charged following a string of crimes committed in Whitehorse in October 2015.

The most serious incident was the couple’s unsuccessful robbery of a tenant at the Stratford Motel on Fourth Avenue. A scuffle ensued where Firth sprayed the tenant and a neighbour with bear spray.

The pair also smashed a car window in the Walmart parking lot and stole a purse and wallet containing cash and credit cards.

Video footage captured Firth using the credit card at an ATM with Stein behind her.

As well, over several days, Stein stole a Galaxy tablet worth $350 from the Whitehorse General Hospital.

He also conned a man into giving him a credit card by claiming to work for a gas station, and conned two more men into giving him $120 with the promise of discount cigarettes.

In a joint submission with the Crown, Firth pled guilty in December 2015 to the charges she was convicted of for her role in two of the incidents.

Stein went to trial in June 2016 to argue over his involvement in the robbery. He pled guilty to charges for the other incidents.

During trial, he claimed he’d thought they were going to the hotel to buy marijuana rather than commit robbery.

However, Justice Luther found that Stein and Firth had come up with a “very foolish plan” to commit the robbery together.

On appeal, Larochelle said his client had “made a series of unfortunate decisions in his life” and struggled with a drug addiction. Stein has a lengthy criminal record, with more than 50 convictions, mostly for property offences.

But Larochelle argued that Stein’s five-year sentence for the robbery is demonstrably unfit. A sentence of three to four years would be more appropriate, he said.

The robbery is the first time that Stein was convicted of a serious violent offence, he added.

Stein has previously been convicted of one charge of uttering threats and one charge of assault.

As well Larochelle argued that Justice Luther erred in not taking parity or rehabilitation into sentencing, being inconsistent with the role Firth played in the crime, and having convictions for three of the incidents served consecutively rather than concurrently.

Porteous said while it is understandable that Stein is upset with the sentence, it was appropriate, given the significance of the crimes and his lengthy criminal record.

She argued that Justice Luther had made no significant errors in his decision and the sentence should be upheld.

Larochelle questioned why Stein received a harsher sentence than Firth for the crimes they committed together.

He said there are many factors that indicate Stein should have received a lighter sentence.

This included the fact that Firth has a similarly lengthy criminal record with more violent offences, including another conviction for a robbery involving bear spray.

Larochelle conceded that Stein’s guilty plea was a mitigating factor but said this was not enough to warrant a two-year gap.

He noted that Stein did not go to trial for egregious reasons and was successful on a number of counts.

As well, he argued that Luther did not consider the principle of rehabilitation during sentencing.

“Generally, the sentencing judge is rather pessimistic when it comes to rehabilitation,” he said.

He noted that Stein was sober for more than a year before relapsing, which he said was motivation for the string of crimes.

And despite Stein being on and off court conditions for the past 25 years, Larochelle added, Stein has few convictions for breaches of court orders.

But Porteous argued it would not have made sense to prioritize rehabilitation during sentencing, as Stein is a career criminal and breached probation orders on eight occasions. She also noted that Stein was 42 at the time of the robbery.

Larochelle further argued that during trial, the judge found that Firth had an influential role in the robbery and therefore played a greater role in the crime.

But he did not consider this fact during sentencing, the lawyer said.

She was the one who carried and used the bear spray, initiated the violence, and told Stein that the tenant dealt drugs, he noted.

Crown counsel Porteous, however, said that influence does not mean that Firth was the criminal mastermind and Stein was just a rube who went along. They jointly hatched the plan, she said, and Stein knew that Firth was carrying bear spray.

Finally, Larochelle argued convictions for the three incidents Stein committed alone should be considered a spree of crimes and served concurrently.

He argued that the judge erred in having them served one after another because they were committed on different days.

But Porteous said this was within the sentencing judge’s discretion, and the Court of Appeal should not interfere.

The Court of Appeal has reserved decision in the case.

Comments (10)

Up 21 Down 0

Zak 2 on May 26, 2017 at 6:50 pm

A serial thief with 50 convictions. I think that ten years would be more appropriate.

Up 27 Down 3

Groucho d'North on May 25, 2017 at 12:59 pm

I wonder how defence lawyers would perform if they too were penalised when the mutts they defend re-offend? Somebody needs to take responsibility for the multitude of errors made in our justice system and processes.There is NO accountability.

Up 41 Down 1

north_of_60 on May 24, 2017 at 12:45 pm

I will bet that we the taxpayers are paying lawyers on both sides of this case as well as all the court costs.
Thankfully there are a few judges like Luther who seem to be on the side of taxpayers and society who want to see these criminals locked up and not roaming our streets looking for more crimes to commit.

Up 40 Down 1

Willard on May 23, 2017 at 10:23 pm

Judge Luther is one of the very few who is doing his job. He kept protection of the public in mind and didn't look for some obscure reason why the system let this felon down thus giving him a ridiculously light sentence like we have seen handed down by supposed learned people. Two year sentences for murder are ludicrous and an insult to the public.
"Oh, we're trying to rehabilitate the perpetrator." This is hogwash.

Up 39 Down 1

jc on May 23, 2017 at 9:03 pm

This dude obviously doesn't respond to rehabilitation. The sentence is just. Too bad he didn't do his crime in the US - he would be doing 30 years to life now. Now, that's just for someone like him.

Up 29 Down 2

Yukoner on May 23, 2017 at 6:33 pm

What is the new sentence ? How much wasted taxpayer money is going into appeals like these ?
Seems very wasteful and not a good use of justice dollars.

Up 87 Down 2

Thomas Brewer on May 23, 2017 at 4:51 pm

"“The sentence he composed is completely out of range for what similar offenders in the Yukon receive,” argued Larochelle."
EXACTLY. The judiciary has been EXTREMELY lenient on offenders in Yukon. About time a judge looked around at the mess we're in because of it.

Need more judges like this.

Up 83 Down 1

Tom w on May 23, 2017 at 4:31 pm

Suck it up princess. You do the crime(s), you do the time. No ones feeling sorry for you that you caused such pathetic crimes and now you're angry because you got caught.

Up 78 Down 1

BB on May 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm

Luther's a good judge who gets it. This thief won't stop victimizing people, and at least we can give the people of Whitehorse a long break from his predatory behaviour seen as being convicted 50 times and cut loose didn't do any good.

Same goes for Firth, but she's not complaining. Do the crime, do the time.

Up 34 Down 8

Dr Mantis Toboggan on May 23, 2017 at 3:05 pm

7 Years?? Murderers get half of that time in the Yukon.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.