A teen handed an adult sentence for first-degree murder will have to serve his full sentence after his appeal was dismissed.
Lloyd Robert Sarson, 25, was shot and killed on Jan. 1, 2013 in a parked car in Eastview. He was shot eight times.
The Red Deer male youth, who was 17 at the time of the murder, was convicted in December 2016 and sentenced to life without parole for 10 years.
The youth can’t be identified because of provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Sarson and the youth met each other on the streets of Winnipeg when the youth was eight-year-old and Sarson was 15. Sarson began to look after the youth and became a father-figure and mentor. They moved to Red Deer when the youth was 13 and lived together until August 2012, selling drugs.
The youth left Red Deer for Winnipeg, but returned a few months later and began to deal drugs independent from Sarson.
On the evening of the shooting, the two were at a house party together and they drove to complete a couple of drug deals before the shooting.
At 5:20 a.m., Sarson was sitting in the driver’s seat of a car when the youth, in the back seat, shot Sarson to death.
On Friday, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the sentence after the youth appealed it on grounds of a misinterpretation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a misapprehension of the youth’s potential for rehabilitation, overemphasizing the protection of the public, moral blameworthiness and calling it an unfit sentence.
Justices Patricia Rowbotham, Barbara Lea Veldhuis and Michelle Crighton dismissed the appeal and also the youth’s application to admit new evidence.
The new evidence the youth wanted entered into evidence painted a much different picture than what was presented at the sentencing hearing. At the youth’s sentencing hearing, the youth had not pursued a general equivalency diploma, had dropped out of a life skills program and continued to use marijuana and alcohol while in the Calgary Remand Centre.
Since then, the youth has been involved at programs at the Edmonton Institution and in his appeal, said it was an inadequacy of programming that caused him not to take part in programs while in remand. The judges didn’t buy the excuse and said the youth was not motivated.