II Ka 525/24 AI generated

Criminal appeal dismissed; defense's procedural objection rejected; defendant ordered to pay court costs.

Case Number II Ka 525/24

Court / Authority Sąd powszechny

Jurisdiction

Poland (PL)

Decision Date 2024-09-23

Outcome Dismissed

Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The District Court in Siedlce dismissed the defense's appeal against the first-instance judgment convicting the defendant of theft. The defense argued for a change in the ruling under Article 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the court found the appeal entirely unfounded. Consequently, the original conviction was upheld, and the defendant was ordered to pay 340 PLN in court costs for the appeal proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 636 § 1 k.p.k.; Art. 438 § 2 k.p.k.: An appeal by the defense is dismissed as unfounded when it fails to demonstrate a procedural error affecting the judgment, thereby confirming the rule that the appellant bears all costs of the appeal.

Keywords

AI generated

criminal appeal dismissal court costs allocation procedural error objection theft conviction upheld defense appeal rejection

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Art. 636 § 1 k.p.k.

Art. 438 § 2 k.p.k.

Art. 3 ust. 1 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

art. 439 k.p.k

art. 437 § 2 k.p.k