Guilty plea for new rash of crimes

Guilty plea for new rash of crimes

A prolific Winnipeg criminal once dubbed a "one-man wrecking crew" has pleaded guilty to his latest rampage and could be facing a lengthy prison term.

Jody Duczminski, 26, admitted Monday to a series of crimes stemming from an incident last summer when he led police on a high-speed chase in a stolen vehicle after calling 911 claiming he had a gun and was prepared to harm both himself and any officers who tried to stop him.

Police say Duczminski reached speeds of 160 kilometres per hour while racing around the south Perimeter Highway in a Mitsubishi Lancer that had been stolen from a Transcona car dealership. Police eventually got the car stopped without injury or major damage. No weapons were found.

Duczminski has now pleaded guilty to charges including motor-vehicle theft, evading police, uttering threats and public mischief. He is being held in custody and will be sentenced later this fall, where the Crown is expected to seek significant prison time.

Duczminski has a lengthy history with the criminal justice system. He was sentenced to two years in prison for a 2002 car theft and arson spree that caused nearly $1 million in damages. He reoffended just weeks after he was released on parole in 2003 with a string of crimes, including trying to mug an elderly woman, driving stolen cars through two gas station kiosks and stealing food items, robbing a Dickie Dee ice cream driver and leading police on a high-speed car chase through the city.

Provincial court Judge Linda Giesbrecht sentenced Duczminski to the equivalent of 32 months time served for that spree, which caused more than $50,000 damage.

Community sentence sought for graffiti vandal

Community sentence sought for graffiti vandal, dad to be

Dustin Fenby says he’s ready to set aside the spray paint and leave his days as a graffiti vandal in the past.

But that’s not enough to convince a judge Fenby shouldn’t go to jail for a three-month “tagging” spree that left nearly 80 business and property owners cleaning up after him. Judge Lynne Stannard reserved sentencing Monday, saying she was not yet convinced she should accept a joint Crown and defence recommendation that would allow him to serve a 20-month conditional sentence in the community. Stannard told special prosecutor Susan Helenchilde and defence lawyer Giselle Champagne she wants to hear further submissions why a conditional sentence would be appropriate.

A final sentencing date will be set later this month.

Fenby, 23, was among six graffiti taggers arrested in a police roundup in late 2008. He has admitted vandalizing 77 properties along Corydon Avenue, Osborne Street and Portage Avenue between August and November of 2008.

“There was enormous property damage,” Helenchilde said.

Police connected Fenby to pictures of graffiti posted on a social networking site. A search of Fenby’s home later uncovered notebooks containing pictures of his graffiti work and his “tag” — COEK — as well as 17 cans of spray paint and other graffiti paraphernalia.

Fenby has 12 prior convictions for mischief to property in 2006. He was still on probation for those offences when he reoffended in August 2008.

Helenchilde said she was prepared to support a conditional sentence on the word of Fenby’s probation officer.

“He seems to have inspired a lot of confidence in his probation officer,” Helenchilde said.

Fenby claimed impending fatherhood has caused him to reevaluate his priorities.

“It was a really stupid part of my life,” he told court. “I just want to move on, have a baby, grow up.”

Earlier this year Stannard granted a conditional sentence to another graffiti tagger, only to see him back on the street vandalizing property less than two weeks later. Stannard ordered Michael Hudey to serve the remainder of his two-year conditional sentence in jail.

Like Fenby, Hudey claimed the responsibilities of new fatherhood “opened (his) eyes” to the error of his ways.

Graffiti case Judge may hike tagger's sentence
A Manitoba judge says jail may be the only option for one of Winnipeg's most prolific graffiti taggers.
Dustin Fenby showed up in court Monday expecting to walk away with a conditional sentence, proposed as a joint recommendation from Crown and defence lawyers. But after hearing submissions, provincial court Judge Lynn Stannard said she thinks the proposed penalty may be too lenient.
Stannard told lawyers she is considering the rare move of ignoring a plea bargain and invited them to make written submissions on why she shouldn't. The case has been adjourned until later this summer.
Fenby, 23, was arrested in 2008 as part of major police crackdown on graffiti. He pleaded guilty last year to 77 counts of mischief, which represents the exact number of property owners he targeted. Most of the damage was done in the Corydon area, court was told.
Fenby would always use his signature tag of "Coek" -- the misspelling was apparently deliberate -- then bragged about what he'd done by posting pictures of his work on social networking sites like Facebook.
"There was a significant amount of property damage done," said Crown attorney Susan Helenchilde. She couldn't provide any specific financial numbers to court, but said some tags cost hundreds of dollars to erase.
Helenchilde and defence lawyer Giselle Champagne were seeking a 20-month conditional sentence for Fenby, which allow him to remain free in the community. Stannard expressed concern about his previous criminal record, which includes numerous breaches of court orders and 12 prior convictions for similar graffiti in 2006.
A pre-sentence report paints Fenby as a high risk to reoffend and says he has unresolved drug, alcohol and gambling issues, which have led to repeated violations of probation and bail.
"Ever since I can remember I've been screwing up and making life hard for myself," he told his probation officer. However, Fenby now claims he wants to "turn his life around," especially with his girlfriend due to give birth to their first child in August.
"It was a really stupid part of my life," Fenby told court Monday of his criminal past. "I want to move on, grow up."
Fenby likely didn't do himself any favours with the judge when he showed up nearly an hour late for his sentencing hearing, which nearly prompted Stannard to issue a warrant for his arrest. He pulled a similar stunt last winter.

I completely agree with the proposition of a conditional sentence. Jail should always be a last resort. The courts need to rely less on jail as a sentence and more on community alternatives. I believe that drug and property offenders and non violent offenders, should not be imprisoned. They will only likely become further entrenched in the criminal lifestyle and negatively impacted, especially since this man is a new father. The impact of prison would also affect his child. 

I would sentence this man to a conditional sentence with conditions of community service work, and restitution to the properties he damaged along with a curfew. I think this would be a more meaningful sentence, as opposed to prison. Since he has drug and alcohol issues, I would also have this man participate in substance abuse programs to help him with his addictions. Prison would do nothing to address the root causes of this man's criminal behaviour and would negatively impact him and his family.

Non violent property offenders should not be imprisoned. Prison should always be a last resort, not over-relied upon. This man should receive a conditional sentence. Prison would negatively impact this man and his family and has no purpose, besides revenge/retribution, which is completely unjustified. Prison would not address the root causes of this man's criminal behaviour, such as his addictions issues. 

Prisons do not accomplish deterrence. Most criminals are impulsive and not rational, cost-benefit weighing actors. This would not teach anybody a lesson. Prison does not deter, prevent or reduce crime. If you want our society to get "tough" on crime, you are essentially advocating for less safe communities, because prisons do not address the root causes of crime and actually increase the chances of re-offending.  

Two police officers plead not guilty to fabricating evidence against drug suspect

Officers plead not guilty to fabricating evidence

Two Winnipeg police officers are fighting allegations they fabricated evidence to build a stronger case against a suspected drug dealer.

Const. Graeme Beattie, 31, and Const. Paul Clark, 42, pleaded not guilty Monday at the start of their preliminary hearing, which will determine if there is sufficient evidence for them to stand trial. A court-ordered ban prevents details of the hearing from being published.

The pair were arrested in March 2009 after the Crown attorney stayed charges of trafficking and proceeds of crime against a 20-year-old man. The charges read that police "did with intent to mislead fabricate report and notes, with intent that it should be used as evidence in an existing judicial proceeding." The charges also state the officers made a "false statement" by accusing the young man of drug trafficking.

Both officers joined the police service in 2006 and were moved to administrative duties following their arrests. The preliminary hearing is expected to finish later this week.

Winnipeg officers deny fabricating evidence

Two Winnipeg police officers have denied allegations that they fabricated evidence and obstructed justice in their investigation of a suspected drug dealer.
Consts. Graeme Beattie, 30, and Paul Clark, 41, pleaded not guilty to charges of fabricating evidence, attempting to obstruct justice, and public mischief at the start of a preliminary inquiry into their criminal case on Monday.
A mandatory publication ban on the preliminary hearing prevents the reporting of any evidence given. The pre-trial hearing is to determine whether the Crown's case is strong enough to go to trial.
Manitoba Justice has hired lawyer Robert Tapper to act as an independent prosecutor.
The officers are accused of falsifying notes and reports that led to a man being charged with drug trafficking in May 2008, according to court documents obtained by CBC News when Clark and Beattie were formally charged.
The case against the suspected drug dealer, 20, wound its way through the courts for months until the Crown stayed the charges against the man in October 2008 on the day his preliminary hearing was set to begin.
An internal police service investigation was launched a month later, and the officers were charged in April 2009.
The mischief charges stem from the alleged falsified reports, which polices said caused officers to unnecessarily investigate a drug-trafficking offence.
Beattie and Clark are currently assigned to administrative desk duties within the police force. Each had three years of experience with the Winnipeg police at the time they were charged.

Fabricating evidence is not acceptable. Police are supposed to be protecting us and upholding the law, not breaking it. We need police that we can trust and not a dirty and corrupt police force in Winnipeg, who will do anything, just to secure a conviction against somebody.  


So who are we supposed to trust:
1) The police who swore to serve and protect?
2) The internal police who decided to charge their counterparts?
3) The crown that blows more cases than dynamite (in my opinion anyway).
4) The courts/judges that used to rely on testimony from these officers?
5) A drug dealer who's case was thrown out of court?
6) The government that tends to let the justice system remain the same despite many complaints and problems!
I'm not interested in the drugs but the accused dealer is probaly the most honest one of the bunch, including his defense lawyer. What a sad state justice is in Canada these days!