Plea Bargaining on Appeal and Judicial Review of the Sentence: Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling No. 15801/2025
The issue of plea bargaining on appeal – or, to use the legislator's wording, "agreement on appeal grounds" pursuant to Article 599-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure – continues to generate interpretative questions regarding the scope of review by the court of legitimacy. The recent Ruling No. 15801 of April 1, 2025 (filed April 23, 2025) by the Third Criminal Section offers a new piece of the puzzle, useful not only for legal practitioners but also for those, defendants or injured parties, who wish to understand the room for manoeuvre within this procedural agreement.
The Core of the Ruling
The Court, presided over by V. D. N. and reported by V. B., declares the appeal inadmissible against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Salerno, reaffirming a principle already established: in plea bargaining on appeal, the parties are not bound by an arithmetic criterion for determining the sentence. Consequently, the review by the court of legitimacy remains limited to verifying the overall appropriateness of the agreed-upon sentence.
Plea bargaining on appeal - Determination of the sentence - Predetermined criterion - Exclusion - Consequences - Review of the final sentence - Exclusivity.
In other words, if errors creep into the calculation process – for example, in the application of mitigating circumstances, the reduction for the procedural rite, or the balancing with aggravating circumstances – this does not allow for an effective appeal against the sentence, provided that the final sentence falls within legal parameters and is proportionate to the offense. The focus therefore shifts from mathematics to the reasonableness of the agreement.
Relevant Legislation and Case Law
Article 599-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by Legislative Decree 36/2018, aims to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court. The legislator entrusts the parties, not the judge, with constructing the sentence, while still preserving a review of legitimacy under Article 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for violations of law or manifest illogicality. The Third Section, with today's ruling, aligns with previous consistent decisions (Cass. nn. 7399/2025, 50710/2023, and 23614/2022) and departs from isolated contrary rulings (Cass. n. 22487/2024).
- Exclusivity of review over the final sentence
- Inadmissibility of appeals for mere calculation errors
- Centrality of the agreement between prosecution and defense
- Protection of the defendant delegated to the negotiation phase
Practical Implications for Defense and Prosecution
For the defense attorney, this means that:
- negotiations on appeal must be conducted carefully, considering the overall sentence from the outset;
- it is futile to hope for an arithmetic correction in the Supreme Court: it is better to focus on substantive elements (such as the facts, the legal qualification, the existence of grounds for non-punishability);
- calculation errors can only be relevant if they lead to an illegal sentence, i.e., above or below the statutory limits.
On the prosecution's side, the principle strengthens the effectiveness of the procedural agreement and reduces the risk of annulment, promoting the stability of decisions and contributing to the European Union's objectives of procedural economy (consider the references in Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings).
Conclusions
Ruling No. 15801/2025 confirms an now established line: plea bargaining on appeal is a space of negotiated autonomy whose rules are primarily played out between the parties. The court of legitimacy intervenes only to prevent obvious abuses, but not to redo the calculations. This is one more reason for the defense attorney to meticulously handle the negotiation phase and for the client to understand that, once signed, the margin for revision is minimal.
