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

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

The Abbreviated Trial and Sentence Reduction

The abbreviated trial allows the defendant to obtain a reduction of the sentence, equal to one-sixth, provided that they waive certain rights, such as the right to request witness testimony. The judgment in question emphasizes that if the judge of the merits indicates in the judgment's device the sentence to be executed in case of failure to appeal, no nullity occurs. This is a fundamental aspect, as it prevents the defendant from contesting the decision due to a formal error.

Clarifications on Nullity and the Rights of the Defendant

The judge of the merits, by anticipating the determination of the sentence, provides a clarification that does not violate the rights of intervention, assistance, and representation of the defendant. The following is the maxim from the judgment:

Abbreviated trial - Reduction of the sentence by one-sixth by the execution judge pursuant to Article 442, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Indication in the judgment, by the judge of the merits, of the sentence that will result from the failure to appeal - Nullity - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of the abbreviated trial, when the judge of the merits - anticipating the determination of the binding content that must be assumed "in executivis" after the formation of the final judgment - indicates in the judgment's device the sentence to be executed in case of failure to appeal, calculating the reduction provided for in Article 442, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no nullity occurs, so that, unless a calculation error has been committed, the convicted person who has not appealed the judgment has no interest in contesting before the execution judge the decision that, although irregular, does not violate their rights of intervention, assistance, and representation as per Article 178, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not result in prejudice in terms of the correct computation of the sentence.

This clarification is particularly useful to avoid unnecessary litigation and to ensure greater legal certainty. The court's decision emphasizes that the interest of the defendant is protected, unless calculation errors occur in determining the sentence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 28917 of 2024 represents a step forward in the applicative clarity of the rules concerning the abbreviated trial. It firmly establishes that the indication of the sentence by the judge of the merits, 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 the rights of defendants, while promoting the efficiency of the judicial system.

Bianucci Law Firm