Sequencing of imprisonment and addiction rehabilitation: mandatory two-year custody before facility placement
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (6th Criminal Senate) rejected the defendant's revision against the Landgericht Saarbrücken's judgment of September 1, 2023, upholding the conviction but modifying the execution order to mandate that two years of the imposed imprisonment be served prior to admission to a rehabilitation facility for addiction treatment; the defendant bears the costs of the appellate proceedings and the necessary expenses of the auxiliary victim. The dispute concerned the procedural order of serving a custodial sentence in conjunction with placement in a rehabilitation institution, challenging the sequence established by the lower court. The decisive legal basis involves the statutory framework governing the coordination of penal sanctions and therapeutic measures, specifically regarding the permissible sequence of executing imprisonment and the placement of addicts in a rehabilitation facility under German criminal procedure and execution law.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertSequencing of imprisonment and addiction rehabilitation: mandatory two-year custody before facility placement: The dispute concerned the procedural order of serving a custodial sentence in conjunction with placement in a rehabilitation institution, challenging the sequence established by the lower court. The decisive legal basis involves the statutory framework governing the coordination of penal sanctions and therapeutic measures, specifically regarding the permissible sequence of executing imprisonment and the placement of addicts in a rehabilitation facility under German criminal procedure and execution law.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Saarbrücken vom 1. September 2023 wird als unbegründet verworfen; der Ausspruch über die Reihenfolge der Vollstreckung wird jedoch aus den in der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts genannten Gründen dahin geändert, dass zwei Jahre der verhängten Freiheitsstrafe vor der Unterbringung in der Entziehungsanstalt zu vollziehen sind.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels und die der Nebenklägerin im Revisionsverfahren entstandenen notwendigen Auslagen zu tragen.
Sander
Feilcke
Tiemann
von Schmettau
Arnoldi