Analysis of Judgment No. 28917 of 2024: Abbreviated Proceedings and Sentence Reduction

Judgment No. 28917 of March 26, 2024, filed on July 17, 2024, provides an important interpretation regarding abbreviated proceedings and the consequent sentence reduction. This topic is of significant interest to legal professionals and individuals involved in criminal proceedings, as it clarifies procedural and substantive aspects of great importance.

Abbreviated Proceedings and Sentence Reduction

Abbreviated proceedings allow the defendant to obtain a one-sixth reduction of the sentence, provided they waive certain rights, such as the right to request testimonial evidence. The judgment under review focuses on the fact that if the trial judge indicates in the operative part of the sentence the penalty to be served in case of non-appeal, no nullity occurs. This is a fundamental aspect, as it prevents the defendant from challenging the decision due to a formal error.

Clarifications on Nullity and Defendant's Rights

By anticipating the determination of the sentence, the trial judge provides a clarification that does not violate the defendant's rights of intervention, assistance, and representation. The maxim of the judgment is reported below:

Abbreviated proceedings - One-sixth sentence reduction by the execution judge pursuant to art. 442, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Indication in the judgment, by the trial judge, of the sentence that will result from the failure to file an appeal - Nullity - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of abbreviated proceedings, if the trial judge - anticipating the constrained determination that must be made "in executivis" after the judgment becomes final - indicates in the operative part of the sentence the penalty to be served in case of failure to file an appeal, calculating the reduction referred to in art. 442, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no nullity occurs. Therefore, unless there has been a calculation error, the convicted person who has not appealed the sentence has no interest in challenging before the execution judge the decision which, although irregular, does not violate their right to intervention, assistance, and representation under art. 178, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not entail prejudice in terms of the correct calculation of the sentence.

This clarification is particularly useful for avoiding unnecessary litigation and ensuring greater legal certainty. The court's decision emphasizes that the defendant's interest is protected, unless calculation errors occur in the determination of the sentence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28917 of 2024 represents a step forward in the clarity of applying the rules relating to abbreviated proceedings. It firmly establishes that the indication of the sentence by the trial judge, even if unconventional, does not entail any nullity, provided there are no calculation errors. This contributes to better management of criminal proceedings and offers greater protection of defendants' rights, while promoting the efficiency of the judicial system.