II Ka 253/24 AI generated

Court dismissed appeal against sentence for theft, upholding original conviction and costs. The defendant appealed claiming procedural errors and factual mistakes regarding the crime.

Case Number II Ka 253/24

Court / Authority Sąd powszechny

Jurisdiction

Poland (PL)

Decision Date 2024-06-11

Outcome Dismissed

Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against the first-instance judgment convicting him of theft under Article 157 of the Criminal Code. The defense argued for a change in the verdict citing procedural violations and factual errors, while the prosecution maintained the original conviction was correct. The court found no merit in the appeals, thereby upholding the first-instance ruling and ordering the defendant to pay court costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 438 k.p.k.; Art. 636 k.p.k.: The appellate court reviews the first-instance judgment for errors in law or fact that could affect the outcome; if none are found, the original verdict stands.

Keywords

AI generated

appeal against conviction theft criminal offense procedural error review factual error review court costs award dismissal of appeal Criminal Procedure Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated

art. 157 § 1 kk

art. 438 k.p.k.

art. 439 k.p.k.

art. 636 § 1 k.p.k.

art. 8 ust. 1 pkt 3 Ustawy z dnia 23 czerwca 1973 r. o opłatach w sprawach karnych

§ 1 Rozporządzenia Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dnia 18 czerwca 2003 r. w sprawie wysokości i sposobu obliczania wydatków Skarbu Państwa w postępowaniu karnym

art. 438 pkt 1 k.p.k

art. 438 pkt 2 k.p.k

art. 438 pkt 3 k.p.k

art. 438 pkt 4 k.p.k

AI generated

II Ka 145/24

Court modifies appeal to convict defendant of drunk driving and imposes suspended sentence with driving ban.

II Ka 138/26

Appeal dismissed for excessive sentence; court found no gross disproportionality despite defendant's child health issues.

IV Ka 270/25

Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld due to defendant's prior non-compliance with drug trafficking ban.

V U 642/16