A man who pleaded guilty to driving while prohibited and in possession of stolen property over $5,000 has been denied an appeal of his sentence.
Roy Hopkins and the Crown prosecutor jointly recommended a sentence for the driving offences, and agreed on an 18-month to two years less a day range for the stolen property offence, according to a three-judge B.C. Court of Appeal decision.
Hopkins had wanted a conditional sentence order but the Powell River sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day.
Hopkins appealed his sentence on the basis that the judge erred in not imposing a custodial sentence of 18 months or, alternatively, that the custodial sentence of two years less a day was unfit.
He claimed the judge overemphasized his prior criminal record, ignored relevant mitigating factors, including his traumatic upbringing, and early guilty plea. He also said the judge did not properly consider his medical condition.
The appeal court noted Hopkins, 53, began committing crimes in Ontario in 1984 and had amassed an extensive criminal record comprising 117 convictions, 84 of which were property offences.
At the time of his June 2021 arrest, Hopkins had multiple outstanding warrants in B.C. and Alberta.
He was found driving a stolen van with large decals depicting “D.J. Directional Drilling Ltd,” all while indefinitely prohibited from driving in B.C.
The van, valued at $10,000, contained a Calgary water services meter valued at $5,000 as well as a number of tools worth approximately $500. The van had been stolen in Calgary, Alta., following a break and enter committed during the morning of June 26, 2021 and driven shortly thereafter by the appellant to Powell River.
In the reasons for sentence, the judge noted that when Hopkins was formally advised of the reasons for his arrest, he stated, “whatever, yeah, big f**ing deal.”
The appeal court upheld the sentence.
“The judge was faced with the reality of sentencing an offender who clearly had a ‘prolific’ criminal record which included a significant number of property offences,” the May 20 ruling released May 27 said. “She properly concluded that the principles of sentencing in this case were primarily deterrence and denunciation for an offender such as Mr. Hopkins.”
