Criminal revision: rejection of appeal due to lack of legal error and exclusion of § 64 StGB measure from scope of review
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (4th Criminal Senate) dismissed the defendant's appeal as unfounded, leaving the lower court's judgment in force, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the legal remedy. The dispute concerned a criminal conviction where the defendant challenged the judgment but had effectively excluded from his appeal the lower court's decision to refrain from ordering detention in a detoxification facility under § 64 StGB. The court held that no legal error to the defendant's detriment was found upon review pursuant to § 349 Abs. 2 StPO, thereby upholding the acquittal from detention measures despite a contrary request by the Public Prosecutor General, which was deemed resolved due to the defendant's procedural exclusions.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO, § 64 StGB; Criminal revision: rejection of appeal due to lack of legal error and exclusion of § 64 StGB measure from scope of review: The dispute concerned a criminal conviction where the defendant challenged the judgment but had effectively excluded from his appeal the lower court's decision to refrain from ordering detention in a detoxification facility under § 64 StGB. The court held that no legal error to the defendant's detriment was found upon review pursuant to § 349 Abs. 2 StPO, thereby upholding the acquittal from detention measures despite a contrary request by the Public Prosecutor General, which was deemed resolved due to the defendant's procedural exclusions.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the dispositive to provide the legal basis for dismissing the appeal as unfounded because the review revealed no legal error to the defendant's detriment.
Volltext
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Münster bei dem Amtsgericht Bocholt vom 29. Juni 2022 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben hat (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:
Der Antrag des Generalbundesanwalts, das angegriffene Urteil aufzuheben, soweit von einer Unterbringung des Angeklagten in einer Entziehungsanstalt (§ 64 StGB) abgesehen worden ist, hat seine Erledigung gefunden. Denn der Angeklagte hat die unterbliebene Maßregelanordnung wirksam von seinem Revisionsangriff ausgenommen.
Quentin
Bartel
Rommel
Maatsch
Messing