Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 1864/2005 AI generated

Cannabis possession conviction upheld on appeal; sentence and probation term affirmed as properly individualized.

Case Number Decizia nr. 1864/2005
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Court Costs Borne by appellant
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the defendant's appeal as unfounded, affirming the lower courts' decisions and leaving the one-year prison sentence (with conditional suspension and a three-year probation term) for cannabis possession offenses under Article 4 of Law No. 143/2000 in force. The defendant had been convicted for repeatedly purchasing and consuming cannabis with another co-defendant during 2003–2004, and had challenged the sentence length. The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly individualized the penalty by weighing the high social danger of the offense against the defendant's clean record and sincere attitude, so no reduction or other grounds for cassation were warranted; the defendant was also ordered to pay judicial costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 4 din Legea nr. 143/2000, art. 76 lit. d) C. pen, art. 81 C. pen, art. 83 C. pen, Art. 74 – art. 76 lit. d) C. pen; Cannabis possession conviction upheld on appeal; sentence and probation term affirmed as properly individualized: 143/2000 in force. The defendant had been convicted for repeatedly purchasing and consuming cannabis with another co-defendant during 2003–2004, and had challenged the sentence length. The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly individualized the penalty by weighing the high social danger of the offense against the defendant's clean record and sincere attitude, so no reduction or other grounds for cassation were warranted; the defendant was also ordered to pay judicial costs.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal sentence suspension of prison sentence judicial law cannabis narcotics act offenses reduction of sentence cannabis consumption

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 4 din Legea nr. 143/2000
Legal basis for the conviction; the appeal against the sentence was dismissed as unfounded.
art. 76 lit. d) C. pen
74 – art. 76 lit. d) C. pen.
art. 81 C. pen
Granted suspended sentence; the appeal against the sentence was dismissed as unfounded.
art. 83 C. pen
Cites the warning about revocation of suspension; mentioned in the conviction, but not cited in the dispositive.
Art. 74 – art. 76 lit. d) C. pen
Applied to mitigate the penalty; the appeal against the sentence was dismissed as unfounded.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 126/2014
Drug conviction upheld on cassation; reduction and sentence-modality appeals barred as factual re-assessment
Decizia nr. 1084/2003
Drug possession conviction upheld but sentence replaced with suspended probation after appeal.
Decizia nr. 90/2010
Conviction upheld: fine for personal cannabis possession affirmed as lawful despite claim of minor social danger
Decizia nr. 2145/2012
Drug possession conviction mandatory under guilty plea; penalty individualization and social danger assessment
Decizia nr. 1236/2011
Rejection of excessive mitigation for minor-quantity drug trafficking and sufficiency of evidence for appellate sentence individualization

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 4 din Legea nr. 143/2000

Legal basis for the conviction; the appeal against the sentence was dismissed as unfounded.

Art. 74 – art. 76 lit. d) C. pen.

Applied to mitigate the penalty; the appeal against the sentence was dismissed as unfounded.

Art. 81 C. pen.

Granted suspended sentence; the appeal against the sentence was dismissed as unfounded.

Art. 83 C. pen.

Cites the warning about revocation of suspension; mentioned in the conviction, but not cited in the dispositive.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Asupra recursului de față;

În baza lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

Prin sentința penală nr. 446 din 3 iunie 2004, Tribunalul Cluj a condamnat, printre alții, pe inculpatul T.G. la un an închisoare, pentru infracțiunea prevăzută de art. 4 din Legea nr. 143/2000, cu aplicarea art. 74 – art. 76 lit. d) C. pen.

În temeiul art. 81 C. pen., s-a dispus suspendarea condiționată a executării pedepsei, pe durata termenului de încercare de 3 ani și s-a atras atenția inculpatului asupra dispozițiilor art. 83 C. pen.

S-au reținut, în esență, următoarele:

În cursul anului 2003 și la începutul anului 2004, împreună cu un alt inculpat (condamnat în aceeași cauză) inculpatul T.G. a cumpărat în repetate rânduri, diferite cantități de cannabis, pe care ulterior le-au consumat.

Curtea de Apel Cluj, prin decizia penală nr. 265 din 9 septembrie 2004, a respins, ca nefondat, apelul declarat de inculpat.

Prin recursul declarat, inculpatul a solicitat reducerea pedepsei aplicate.

Recursul inculpatului nu este fondat.

Din examinarea hotărârilor dosarului, rezultă că la stabilirea pedepsei, instanța a avut în vedere gradul ridicat de pericol social al faptei săvârșite, reflectat de modalitatea în care inculpatul a conceput și realizat fapta, dar, totodată, și datele ce caracterizează persoana recurentului (fără antecedente penale, cu o atitudine sinceră în cursul procesului) criterii pe baza cărora s-a realizat o justă individualizare a pedepsei, astfel că nu se impune reducerea acesteia.

Nefiind nici alte temeiuri de casare care pot fi luate în considerare din oficiu, urmează ca recursul inculpatului să fie respins, ca nefondat, cu obligarea lui la cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca nefondat, recursul declarat de inculpatul G.T. împotriva deciziei penale nr. 265 din 9 septembrie 2004 a Curții de Apel Cluj.

Obligă pe recurentul inculpat la plata sumei de 1.600.000 lei cheltuieli judiciare către stat, din care suma de 400.000 lei, reprezentând onorariul pentru apărarea din oficiu, se va avansa din fondul Ministerului Justiției.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 17 martie 2005.