Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 1076/2004 AI generated

Admissibility of revision proceedings based on request for sentence reduction

Case Number Decizia nr. 1076/2004
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 High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as unfounded the cassation appeal filed by the convicted individual, thereby upholding the lower courts' rejection of his petition for the revision of his criminal judgment and leaving the original conviction and sentence in force. The dispute concerned a procedural challenge wherein the appellant sought to initiate revision proceedings based on non-statutory grounds, specifically requesting a reduction of his punishment, which the lower courts had consistently rejected for lack of legal basis. The Supreme Court determined that the revision request was inadmissible because the grounds invoked did not fall within the exhaustive list of statutory cases for revision provided in Article 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and noted that a mere request for sentence reduction cannot be examined through the revision legal remedy. The court ordered the appellant to pay 700,000 lei in judicial costs to the state, with the defender's honorarium of 200,000 lei advanced from the Ministry of Justice's fund, pursuant to Article 385(15)(b) and Article 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 394 C. proc. pen, art. 38515 pct.1 lit. b) C. proc. pen, art.192 C. proc. pen; Admissibility of revision proceedings based on request for sentence reduction: The dispute concerned a procedural challenge wherein the appellant sought to initiate revision proceedings based on non-statutory grounds, specifically requesting a reduction of his punishment, which the lower courts had consistently rejected for lack of legal basis. The Supreme Court determined that the revision request was inadmissible because the grounds invoked did not fall within the exhaustive list of statutory cases for revision provided in Article 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and noted that a mere request for sentence reduction cannot be examined through the revision legal remedy. The court ordered the appellant to pay 700,000 lei in judicial costs to the state, with the defender's honorarium of 200,000 lei advanced from the Ministry of Justice's fund, pursuant to Article 385(15)(b) and Article 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal revision proceedings grounds for cassation reduction of sentence procedural orders statutory basis judicial review of sentencing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 394 C. proc. pen
Instanța a motivat soluția prin faptul că nici unul dintre motivele invocate nu sunt incidente dispozițiilor art. 394 C. proc. pen.
art. 38515 pct.1 lit. b) C. proc. pen
Main legal ground cited to dismiss the cassation appeal as unfounded.
art.192 C. proc. pen
Procedural rule cited in the final orders regarding the imposition of judicial costs.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 5051/2003
Criminal revision petition for excessive sentence rejected as inadmissible and appeal in cassation dismissed
Decizia nr. 167/2004
Revision appeal rejected: sentence reduction and new instigator conviction outside exhaustive revision grounds; prior judgments stand.
Decizia nr. 3992/2011
Criminal sentence reduction via revision: request inadmissible as outside Art. 394 CPP scope
Decizia nr. 3566/2011
Criminal revision request against judgment on complaint against judge declared inadmissible
Decizia nr. 383/A/2020
Admissibility of revision against non-merits rulings and finality of decisions on revision requests

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 38515 pct.1 lit. b) C. proc. pen.

Main legal ground cited to dismiss the cassation appeal as unfounded.

art.192 C. proc. pen.

Procedural rule cited in the final orders regarding the imposition of judicial costs.

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,

In baza lucrărilor din dosar,constată următoarele :

Prin sentința penală nr.964 din 30.10.2003, Tribunalul București, secția a II-a penală a respins ca neîntemeiată, cererea de revizuire formulată de condamnatul D.A., cu obligarea acestuia la cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

Instanța a motivat soluția prin faptul că nici unul dintre motivele invocate nu sunt incidente dispozițiilor art. 394 C. proc. pen.

Împotriva acestei sentințe a declarat apel condamnatul, fără a indica motivul de casare, solicitând, însă, reducerea pedepsei aplicate.

Prin decizia penală nr. 775 din 17.12.2003, Curtea de Apel București, secția I penală a respins, ca nefondat, apelul declarat de condamnat, apreciind ca fiind legală și temeinică soluția pronunțată de instanța de fond.

Împotriva deciziei , în termen legal, a declarat recurs condamnatul, solicitând admiterea cererii de revizuire și reducerea pedepsei.

Verificând actele dosarului cauzei , Curtea constată că recursul este nefondat întrucât motivul invocat de revizuient nu se regăsește între cazurile de revizuire expres prevăzute de art. 394 C. proc. pen.

Astfel solicitarea de reducere a pedepsei nu poate fi examinată prin exercitarea acestei căi de atac.

Față de aceste considerente, în baza art. 38515 pct.1 lit. b) C. proc. pen. ,urmează să fie respins recursul declarat de condamnat, ca nefondat.

Văzând și dispozițiile art.192 C. proc. pen.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

IN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E :

Respinge, ca nefondat, recursul declarat de condamnatul D.A. împotriva deciziei penale nr. 775 din 17 decembrie 2003 a Curții de Apel București, secția I penală .

Obligă recurentul la 700.000 lei cheltuieli judiciare către stat, din care onorariul cuvenit apărătorului desemnat din oficiu, în sumă de 200.000 lei, se va avansa din fondul Ministerului Justiției.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 24 februarie 2004.