ORDERS THE COURT OF ARRECIFE TO ISSUE A NEW RESOLUTION

A man convicted of ten different robberies in three years gets Supreme Court support to accumulate the sentences

The Criminal Court Number 1 of Arrecife considered that there was no place for this benefit requested by the convict, but the Supreme Court has ordered it to issue a new resolution?

March 26 2014 (08:06 WET)
A man convicted of ten different robberies in three years gets Supreme Court support to accumulate the sentences
A man convicted of ten different robberies in three years gets Supreme Court support to accumulate the sentences

The first section of the Supreme Court has annulled an order issued by the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife, which rejected the claim of a convict, denying him the accumulation of several sentences. Between 2010 and 2012, this person was convicted on at least ten occasions for robbery offenses.

According to the Supreme Court's ruling, in April 2010, the Criminal Court Number 3 of Arrecife sentenced him to one year in prison as the perpetrator of a robbery with force in an inhabited dwelling in June 2008; in June 2010 he was sentenced to another year in prison for robbery with force in things committed in December 2006, while in May 2011 he was given another sentence of six months in prison for a crime of robbery with force in things in the degree of attempt, which occurred in February 2010.

In May 2011 he received another important sentence, of two years and three months in prison for a crime of robbery with force in a dwelling in April 2010; while a month later he was again sentenced to another year in prison for another robbery also in April 2010. Three months later, the Criminal Court Number 1 of Arrecife imposed a sentence of 12 months in prison for another robbery committed in March 2010.

He was also sentenced in 2012 to another four months and 20 days for events committed in April 2010, to another two years and six months for another crime that occurred in the same month, to another two years and six months for another crime in July 2010 and, finally, to another four months in prison for events that occurred in December 2009.

The convict requested that the imposed sentences be accumulated, but the court of first instance ruled that the accumulation of these sentences was not appropriate "as the legal requirements were not met", resulting in "more detrimental to the convict".

 

The accumulation of penalties benefits the convict


The injured party rejected this order of the Court of Arrecife because he considered that the requested accumulation would be "more beneficial". According to the Penal Code, the sentence cannot exceed three times the time for which the most serious penalty is imposed, and in his case it was two years and seven months, so three times that is 7 years and eight months and 25 days in prison. On the contrary, the sum of all the related penalties made more than 12 years deprived of liberty.

The injured party appealed this order and alleged in his appeal a violation of the constitutional precept for violation of effective judicial protection, since he claimed that "the list of sentences requested had not been taken into consideration, with a series of sentences already served being included". This, according to the affected party, had an impact "in a negative and detrimental way for the calculation of those that have been the object of the request". The appellant intended that, given the connection between the criminal acts committed, these should be judged in a single procedure, instead of separately.

 

"Serious deficiency"


The Supreme Court issued a ruling on March 4 on this case and considered that the order of the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife did not include all the penalties imposed on the defendant in the different processes whose accumulation is being discussed, "in flagrant contradiction with the requirements". Given this "serious deficiency", the Supreme Court believes that it is "difficult" to determine with certainty which of the offenses committed can be considered "related by the temporal proximity" in which they were committed, so it is not possible to specify what is three times the most serious penalty imposed.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has declared the nullity of this order of the Criminal Court Number 1 of Arrecife, of July 2013, in which it was agreed not to grant the benefit requested by this convict and has ordered the court of first instance to issue a new resolution "in which the lack is corrected". 

Most read