II Ka 454/23
AI generated
Appeal dismissed; lower court's sentence upheld as no procedural error or factual mistake affected the judgment.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against the first-instance sentence for drug possession. The defense argued procedural violations and factual errors under Articles 438(2) and 438(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming these could have influenced the verdict. The court found no such errors, ruling that the original judgment remained legally sound and factually accurate.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 438 ust. 2, 3 k.p.k.; The appeal is rejected when the appellate court finds no procedural errors or factual mistakes that could have influenced the first-instance judgment.
Keywords
AI generated
drug possession
criminal appeal
procedural error
factual mistake
sentence upheld
costs of appeal
Criminal Procedure Code
Cited Legislation
AI generatedart. 62 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 29 lipca 2005 r. o przeciwdziałaniu narkomanii
art. 438 ust. 2 k.p.k.
art. 438 ust. 3 k.p.k.
art. 636 § 1 k.p.k.
art. 2 ust. 1 pkt 2 ustawy z dnia 23 czerwca 1973 r. o opłatach w sprawach karnych
art. 3 ust. 2 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
Cited Case Law
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedII Ka 26/25
Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld; defendant's claim of excessive penalty rejected by court.
IX Ka 139/24
Court allows appeal against first-instance conviction, overturning verdict due to procedural errors and factual mistakes.
IV Ka 731/22
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance conviction and costs against defendant D.J. for prior criminal record.
II Ka 706/22
Court reduces sentence from 12 to 6 months and removes recidivism aggravation due to procedural error.
VI Ka 396/21
Court upheld drug trafficking sentence, rejecting excessive penalty claim due to lack of disproportionality evidence.