The applicant faces a number of difficulties. Firstly, he pleaded guilty before his Honour Judge Nase in the District Court. His second and even more significant difficulty is that he has already made an application for an extension of time to appeal in respect of this matter. See R v. Kenny [1999] QCA 399, CA No 246 of 1999, 17 September 1999.

[2]

I have read the transcript of the proceedings before this Court on that occasion. The applicant argued that he ought to be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty as he pleaded guilty without legal advice because the Judge told him his trial had to proceed and he was unable to present evidence to the Court which he believed would assist him.

[3]

He claimed he could not have dislocated the complainant's shoulder as he was much shorter than the complainant. He also claimed that the sentence imposed of 120 hours community service was manifestly excessive. He would have preferred a $500 fine even though he was not working at the time of sentence and he had a bad back and had no ability to pay a fine.

[4]

This Court considered the application in CA Number 246 of 1999 on its merits and concluded that applicant had failed to establish any grounds justifying the setting aside of the plea of guilty.

[5]

The Court also determined that the sentence imposed was well within the appropriate range for an offence of this type and that there would be no substance in any application for leave to appeal against that sentence if an extension of time were granted.

[6]

As this very application has already been dealt with by this Court on its merits, the applicant has no standing to bring a fresh application. See R v. Smith [1968] QWN 50; R v. Smith (No. 2) [1969] QWN 10; R v. Pettigrew [1987] 1 Qd R 601; and R v. Brain (1999) SASR 92.

[7]

THE PRESIDENT: The order is: the application is refused.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

# R

Respondent/Defendant:

Kenny \[2000\] QCA 69

Cases Cited (1)

[2000] QCA 69