Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Kp 262/2001 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2001:I.KP.262.2001 AI generated

Defense appeal dismissed as invalid withdrawal by defendant against counsel's will under Criminal Procedure Act.

Case Number VSL sklep I Kp 262/2001
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The defense attorney's appeal against the first-instance judgment was rejected as inadmissible due to the defendant's explicit withdrawal. The defendant had previously submitted a written statement refusing the appeal and later confirmed this stance, making the subsequent filing by counsel invalid. The court ruled that because the appeal was lodged against the defendant's will, it constituted an irrevocable withdrawal under the Criminal Procedure Act, thereby barring further review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367, paragraph 6; Article 368, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act: An appeal filed by defense counsel against the defendant's will constitutes an irrevocable withdrawal and is inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
irrevocable withdrawal defense counsel appeal defendant's will inadmissible appeal Criminal Procedure Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367, paragraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 368, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 445, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
VSK sodba Kp 276/94
Court allows confiscation of foreign currency gains converted to local currency at payment date. Foreign currency confiscation prohibited by Bank Law.
VSL sodba I Kp 1207/99
Court grants probationer's acquittal due to minor significance of illegal entry by exhausted refugee.
VSM Sodba III Kp 6564/2020
Appeal dismissed; court upheld sentence for qualified theft due to required preparation and boldness.
VSM sodba I Kp 706/2007
Appeal dismissed; asylum application does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution or deportation penalties under ZKP. Asylum requests do not grant immunity from criminal prosecution or deportation penalties under the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that an asylum application does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution or deportation penalties under the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that an asylum application does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution or deportation penalties under the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that an asylum application does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution or deportation penalties under the Criminal Procedure Act.
VSM Sodba II Kp 43558/2020
Court upholds plea deal agreement as whole, rejecting appeal against agreed sentence under ZKP Art. 450(3).

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

Pritožba zagovornika obd. I. A. se zavrže kot nedovoljena.

[JEDRO]

Izjava obdolženca, da umika pritožbo zoper sodbo, ki jo je vložil njegov zagovornik proti njegovi volji, je nepreklicen umik. Zato je potrebno tako zagovornikovo pritožbo kot nedovoljeno zavreči.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z uvodoma navedeno sodbo je bil obd. I. A. spoznan za krivega kaznivega dejanja tatvine po čl. 211/I KZ. Izrečena mu je bila kazen pet mesecev zapora in vanjo vštet čas od 13.10.2000 dalje, odkar je obdolženec v priporu. Obdolžencu je bila izrečena tudi stranska kazen izgona tujca iz Republike Slovenije za čas treh let. Nadalje je sodišče izreklo varnostni ukrep odvzema predmetov, naložilo obdolžencu, da mora oškodovancu P... d.o.o. M... plačati znesek 30.000,00 SIT z zakonitimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 9.10.2000 dalje do plačila, obdolžencu pa je naložilo v plačilo tudi stroške kazenskega postopka.

Proti sodbi je obdolženčev zagovornik pravočasno vložil pritožbo, smiselno zaradi zmotne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja. Višji državni tožilec je v mnenju, podanem skladno z določbo II. odst. 445. čl. ZKP, predlagal zavrnitev pritožbe kot neutemeljene. Pritožba ni dovoljena. Po določbi VI. odst. 367. čl. ZKP se zagovornik ne sme pritožiti zoper sodbo proti volji obdolženca. V konkretnem primeru iz spisnih podatkov izhaja, da je obdolženec potem, ko je že prejel pisni odpravek sodbe, sodišču prve stopnje dne 14.12.2000 podal pisno izjavo, da se zoper sodbo noče pritožiti in da naj sodišče ne upošteva pritožbe njegovega zagovornika, v kolikor jo bo vložil.

Dne 18.12.2001 vložena pritožba njegovega zagovornika je bila torej vložena proti volji obdolženca. Da je temu tako, je potrdil obdolženec tudi v vlogi z dne 29.12.2000, ko je na poziv sodišča ponovno sporočil, da se noče pritožiti zoper sodbo in da sodišče prosi, naj pritožbo njegovega zagovornika Lada Arčona zoper sodbo z dne 21.11.2000, ne sprejme. Ker je bila torej pritožba vložena proti volji obdolženca; izjavo z dne 29.12.2000 pa je šteti, da je obdolženec zagovornikovo pritožbo tudi umaknil; je pritožbeno sodišče v skladu z določbo 390.

čl. ZKP pritožbo kot nedovoljeno zavrglo. Preklica umika pritožbe s strani obdolženca z dne 8.1.2001 pa ni moč upoštevati, saj se po določbi V. odst. 368. čl. ZKP umik pritožbe ne more preklicati.