Judgment No. 16129 of 2024: Limits of Deductibility in the Appeal to the Supreme Court

The judgment no. 16129 of March 15, 2024, filed on April 17, 2024, brings to light important considerations regarding the appeal to the Supreme Court in the criminal field, with specific reference to Article 448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This decision by the Supreme Court is situated within a complex legal context, where the choices of the defendant play a crucial role in guiding the course of the proceedings.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Supreme Court has established that the appeal to the Supreme Court, following a sentence of penalty application issued by the appellate judge, is subject to the limits of deductibility provided for by Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This means that the defendant must decide whether to insist on the request for plea bargaining or opt for ordinary judgment, a choice that can significantly influence the final outcome of the trial.

Article 448 is fundamental for understanding the procedure for penalty application, as it regulates the handling of special proceedings. The judgment under examination clarifies that, by opting for plea bargaining, the defendant accepts the consequences of that choice, including the limits in the appeal.

Analysis of the Principle and Its Implications

Sentence of penalty application pronounced at the outcome of the appeal judgment pursuant to Article 448, paragraph 1, last part, of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Appeal to the Supreme Court – Applicability of the limits of deductibility referred to in Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Existence - Reasons. In the matter of the sentence of penalty application pronounced at the outcome of the appeal judgment pursuant to Article 448, paragraph 1, last part, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeal to the Supreme Court is subject to the limits of deductibility referred to in Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the choice to insist on the request for plea bargaining or to opt for ordinary judgment is left to the defendant.

This principle highlights the importance of the strategic choice that the defendant must make. If one opts for plea bargaining, a more streamlined procedure is accepted but with limitations in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court. Conversely, the choice of ordinary judgment may guarantee a greater possibility of contestation but involves a longer and more complex procedural path.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16129 of 2024 offers significant insights for legal practitioners and defendants, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of one’s procedural choices. The clarity with which the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of deductibility limits represents an important step towards a greater understanding of criminal procedures. Lawyers and their clients must be aware of the implications of procedural choices and the potential effects on the possibility of appeal, in order to navigate the Italian legal system in the best possible way.

Bianucci Law Firm