Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
5 StR 130/24 ECLI:DE:BGH:2024:120924B5STR130.24.0 KI-generiert

Effect of withdrawal of appeal filed with lower court after case pending before appellate court

Geschäftsnummer 5 StR 130/24
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang struck_off
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The appellate court declared the defendant's withdrawal of appeal rendered ineffective and thus moot, leaving its earlier decision dismissing the appeal operative. The dispute involved a criminal appeal against a lower court judgment where the defendant filed a withdrawal of the appeal to the lower court on March 26, 2024, after the case had already been pending before the higher court. The decisive legal basis was the principle of pending litigation, which determined that once the case files were transferred to the appellate court, exclusive jurisdiction for receiving declarations regarding the appeal shifted to the appellate court; because the withdrawal reached the appellate court only after the appellate panel had already issued its dispositive decision, the later-arriving declaration had no legal effect.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 354 Abs. 1 StPO, § 347 StPO, § 349 Abs. 2 und 4 StPO; Effect of withdrawal of appeal filed with lower court after case pending before appellate court: The dispute involved a criminal appeal against a lower court judgment where the defendant filed a withdrawal of the appeal to the lower court on March 26, 2024, after the case had already been pending before the higher court. The decisive legal basis was the principle of pending litigation, which determined that once the case files were transferred to the appellate court, exclusive jurisdiction for receiving declarations regarding the appeal shifted to the appellate court; because the withdrawal reached the appellate court only after the appellate panel had already issued its dispositive decision, the later-arriving declaration had no legal effect.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Ausschließliche Zuständigkeiten Wirkungen des Urteils Gegenstandslosigkeit der Überstellung Rückzug des Rechtsbegehrens Strafakten hängiges Verfahren

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 354 Abs. 1 StPO
Cited as the corresponding procedural norm applied by analogy in the dismissal of the appeal with correction of the guilt finding.
§ 347 StPO
Cited in the reasoning to establish that the appellate court had exclusive jurisdiction for the withdrawal declaration after the case was pending, thereby rendering the earlier declaration at the lower court ineffective.
§ 349 Abs. 2 und 4 StPO
Cited to provide the legal basis for the prior dismissal of the appeal, which remained in force because the subsequent withdrawal was deemed moot.
KI-generiert
4 StR 59/24
Effect of withdrawal of criminal appeal after appellate judgment rendered: late filing renders retraction ineffective
4 StR 35/25
Effect of late withdrawal of criminal appeal after appellate decision rendered; exclusive jurisdiction of appellate court for post-transfer procedural declarations
3 StR 125/16
Effect of post-decision withdrawal of criminal appeal: withdrawal is moot once appellate decision is signed and entered
1 StR 47/23
Mootness of criminal appeal withdrawal after appellate judgment issued
2 StR 57/24
Mootness of withdrawal of criminal revision after appellate decision was signed and entered into the court's records

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 347 StPO

Cited in the reasoning to establish that the appellate court had exclusive jurisdiction for the withdrawal declaration after the case was pending, thereby rendering the earlier declaration at the lower court ineffective.

§ 349 Abs. 2 und 4 StPO

Cited to provide the legal basis for the prior dismissal of the appeal, which remained in force because the subsequent withdrawal was deemed moot.

§ 354 Abs. 1 StPO

Cited as the corresponding procedural norm applied by analogy in the dismissal of the appeal with correction of the guilt finding.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Die Rücknahme der Revision ist gegenstandslos.

[GRUENDE]

I. Die gegenüber dem Landgericht Hamburg am 26. März 2024 erklärte Revisionsrücknahme des Angeklagten ist am 10. September 2024 beim Bundesgerichtshof eingegangen. Der Senat hatte das bei ihm seit dem 12. März 2024 anhängige Rechtsmittel gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts vom 4. August 2023 bereits mit Beschluss vom 2. Juli 2024 mit der Maßgabe einer Schuldspruchkorrektur verworfen (§ 349 Abs. 2 und 4 sowie entsprechend § 354 Abs. 1 StPO). Dieser Senatsbeschluss ist mit allen Unterschriften versehen vor dem 10. September 2024 in den Geschäftsgang des Bundesgerichtshofs gelangt.

II. Die Zurücknahme der Revision ist gegenstandslos, da sie dem mit der Sache befassten Senat erst nach dessen Entscheidung über das Rechtsmittel des Angeklagten zugegangen ist. Die gegenüber dem Landgericht erklärte Zurücknahme ist unbeachtlich, denn die Sache war mit dem Eingang der Akten beim Bundesgerichtshof anhängig. Nur dieser war daher für die Entgegennahme von Erklärungen über die Revision zuständig (vgl. LR/Franke, StPO, 26. Aufl., § 347 Rn. 10 mwN; KK-StPO/Gericke, 9. Aufl., § 347 Rn. 11).

Cirener Gericke Köhler

Resch von Häfen