A North Otago man involved in a burglary spree with his brother will remain behind bars.
Jamie Albert Lamatoa (26) pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary and one of receiving, and was sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment in June.
His brother, 32-year-old Alan Bell, admitted eight burglaries and got three years behind bars.
Lamatoa's counsel, Sarah Saunderson-Warner, argued before the High Court at Dunedin her client's jail term in comparison was manifestly excessive, a recently released judgement said.
The two break-ins came as the appellant and his brother travelled from Oamaru to Waimate in November last year.
At the first property they stole items worth $1100, while at the second they made off with goods valued at more than $5000.
Ms Saunderson-Warner told the court Bell's burglaries involved the taking of firearms and happened when he was supposed to be serving a sentence of community work for similar offending.
On that basis, Lamatoa should have been sentenced to about 22 months, she said.
Ms Saunderson-Warner said Judge Kevin Phillips at sentencing incorrectly referred to the man as a ''recidivist'' offender and did not take into account it would be his first prison sentence.
Crown prosecutor Richard Smith, however, said it was not Lamatoa's sentence that was excessive but Bell's that was inadequate.
He told Justice Gerald Nation Judge Phillips made errors in sentencing Bell and the sentence was ''unduly lenient''. He should have been locked up for at least four years, Mr Smith said.
Justice Nation accepted the defence point the difference in the levels of the two men's offending was not reflected in the difference in sentence. But he agreed with the Crown regarding the mistakes made in Bell's sentencing.
''This is a situation where to now reduce the sentence on Mr Lamatoa because of the sentence which Mr Bell received would be to compound a mistake that has already been made,'' the judge said.
''It would 'risk further insult to the integrity of the criminal justice system'.''
Justice Nation accepted Lamatoa perhaps did not fall into the category of recidivist but noted he had several previous convictions for dishonesty offences.
The appeal was dismissed.
