Court rejects appeal by Halifax pimp Markeit Symonds

A Halifax pimp has failed in his bid to get his conviction and four-year prison sentence thrown out.

Markeit Symonds, 21, argued that his guilty plea on one charge of selling the sexual services of a 16-year-old girl was not valid and was the result of ineffective representation by his lawyer, Mark Bailey.

Symonds, through his new lawyer Luke Craggs, argued that he was not properly informed before he agreed to plead guilty.

Symonds had originally been facing seven prostitution-related offences and a breach charge. But on March 16, 2017, he and Bailey went into Halifax provincial court and entered the guilty plea to the single offence.

An agreed statement of facts was read into the record at that time and the judge accepted a joint sentencing recommendation that Symonds get a four-year prison sentence. His name was also placed on the national sex offender registry for a period of 20 years.

Sexual services advertised

At his sentencing, court was told that Symonds took his victim, a girl identified in court documents as B.S., away from a provincial residential home, Sullivan House, where she had been staying. He took her to a hotel and advertised her sexual services through the website Backpage.

Symonds and the girl went to one appointment, but couldn't find the correct address. As they returned to the hotel, documents reveal, Symonds was abusive and threatening toward her.

Police found the girl outside the same hotel she'd been taken to earlier. She told them she wanted to go home. Symonds was arrested when he appeared at Sullivan House looking for the girl.

'Bald assertions'

In a decision released today, a three-member panel of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected Symonds's arguments.

"I reject the assertion that the appellant lacked sufficient comprehension to admit guilt, or was overwhelmed by the court process when the plea was entered," Justice Cindy Bourgeois wrote.

"In my view, the appellant's evidence in support of his claims is lacking," she added. "At best, they are bald assertions with no evidentiary foundation."