reminded the appellant of his obligation to make submissions
about why he should remain in Canada. The letter provided to
the appellant by the officer contained most of this information.
 In cross-examination on his affidavit in support of his
application to withdraw his guilty plea and advance his claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant confirmed that he
understood from the officer that he could be subject to a removal
or deportation order. He also appreciated that, because he had not
received sentences of six months or more for his previous
offences, he could appeal any removal order made against him.
He was also made aware that any sentences of imprisonment
exceeding six months which resulted in a removal order, left him
without a right of appeal from that order.
The pleas of guilty
 On March 24, 2016, the day following his meeting with the
Immigration Enforcement Officer, the appellant appeared with
counsel and pleaded guilty to eight of the 26 counts arising out of
the incidents in October of 2015. Counsel had represented the
appellant in prior proceedings in another jurisdiction and was the
only lawyer the appellant had retained in connection with
the charges from October 2015.
 In advance of his court appearance, the appellant met with
his counsel who explained that he and the Crown would be
making a joint submission for a sentence of 12 months in custody
on all charges.
 In the courtroom, the appellant pleaded guilty to all eight
counts on which he was arraigned. Included were counts charging
assault causing bodily harm and break and enter with intent,
each of which carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment
for at least ten years.
The sentences imposed
 Where permitted to choose mode of procedure, the Crown
proceeded by indictment. Counsel on both sides admitted that the
sentence that should be imposed was 12 months’ imprisonment,
less credit of 247 days for 165 days of pre-disposition custody, to
be followed by three years of probation with several proposed
terms. Neither counsel suggested how to apportion the pre-
disposition custody among the various convictions or how the
individual sentences should be calculated or served to arrive at
the proposed sentence of about four months.
 The sentencing judge’s endorsements on the information
indicate that he attributed the custodial sentence and term
of probation to the conviction of assault causing bodily harm.