Commentary on Judgment No. 1188 of 2024: Substitute Penalties and the Burden of the Defense

The recent judgment No. 1188 of November 22, 2024, published on January 10, 2025, has sparked widespread debate regarding substitute penalties for short custodial sentences. The Court of Appeal of Turin, chaired by Dr. G. V., established a fundamental principle: the appellate judge cannot order the substitution of the custodial sentence “ex officio” unless there has been a specific request from the defense in the appeal document.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court clarified that substitute penalties, as provided by Article 20 bis of the Penal Code, cannot be considered an automatic right. The provision of Article 597, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regards the conversion of the custodial sentence as an exception to the devolutive principle of the appeal. This means that the request for substitution must be well-justified and supported by specific arguments from the defense.

  • The judge is not obliged to evaluate substitute penalties ex officio.
  • It is the burden of the appellant to make a clear and reasoned request.
  • The failure to fulfill this burden leads to the inadmissibility of the request.

Analysis of the Judgment's Summary

Substitute penalties for short custodial sentences - Office applicability in appeal proceedings - Exclusion - Burden of the defense to support the request with specific arguments - Failure to fulfill this burden - Consequences. Regarding substitute penalties for short custodial sentences, the appellate judge cannot order the substitution "ex officio" if, in the appeal document, no specific and reasoned request has been made in this regard, as the conversion of the custodial sentence does not fall within the benefits and reductions expressly indicated by Article 597, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which constitutes a derogatory and exceptional provision to the devolutive principle of the appeal. (In reasoning, the Court also stated that it is the burden of the appellant to support the request for substitution of short custodial sentences with specific arguments and that the failure to fulfill this burden leads to the original inadmissibility of the request).

This passage clearly highlights that the appeal process should not be seen as an opportunity to request generic concessions, but rather as a moment in which the defense must present solid and substantiated arguments. The Court's intention to not allow an extensive interpretation of the rules governing substitute penalties underscores the importance of precision and clarity in legal requests.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 1188 of 2024 represents an important reminder of the responsibility of the defense in the context of criminal proceedings. The necessity to formulate specific requests for substitute penalties not only clarifies the role of the judge but also strengthens the rights of the parties involved. It is essential that lawyers are aware of this aspect to avoid compromising the chances of obtaining a substitution of the penalty at the appeal stage.

Bianucci Law Firm