Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
Ordinanza — n. 29816/2025 — snpen KI-generiert

Criminal appeal dismissed due to established recidivism preventing prescription defense under Italian Penal Code.

Geschäftsnummer Ordinanza — n. 29816/2025 — snpen
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Italien (IT)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Court of Cassazione declared Marco Bevilacqua's appeal inadmissible regarding the extinction of the crime by prescription. The appellant argued for prescription, but the lower court found that his repeated offenses within five years constituted recidivism, which bars the prescription defense. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the appellant was ordered to pay court costs and a fine.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art. 154 c.p.; Art. 146 c.p.: Recidivism within five years prevents the defense of prescription, rendering the appeal inadmissible.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
criminal recidivism prescription defense Italian Penal Code appeal inadmissibility repeated offenses Rückfall bei Straftaten Höchststrafe bedingte Geldstrafe

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Art. 154 c.p.
Art. 146 c.p.
art. 337 cod. pen
2755/2025 CONSIDERATO IN FATTO E IN DIRITTO Visti gli atti, la sentenza impugnata (condanna per il reato di cui all'art. 337 cod.
KI-generiert
Ordinanza — n. 3613/2025 — snpen
Cassation appeal dismissed for generic grounds and lack of prescription calculation errors.
Ordinanza — n. 30803/2023 — snpen
Recourse against conviction for recidiva declared inadmissible under Art. 448 bis c.p.p. due to lack of legal basis.
Ordinanza — n. 16278/2025 — snpen
Criminal appeal dismissed for lack of prescription due to suspended sentence periods included in the seven-year limit.
Ordinanza — n. 6240/2023 — snpen
Italian Court dismisses appeal on criminal conviction for property damage and assault due to procedural defects.
Ordinanza — n. 2817/2026 — snpen
Criminal appeal dismissed for inadmissibility due to non-allowed grounds and lack of prescription. The court rejected the appeal as inadmissible because the first ground repeated merits already decided with correct legal arguments, while the second ground regarding prescription was manifestly unfounded given the recidivism and specific time limits under Article 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court ruled that the appeal did not meet the strict requirements for admissibility in a finality proceeding, leading to the dismissal of the request and the imposition of procedural costs on the appellant. Consequently, the lower court's judgment stands firm against the challenges raised by the defendant. The decision reinforces the principle that finality proceedings must focus on new legal issues rather than re-litigating facts or applying incorrect prescription calculations. This outcome ensures judicial efficiency and respects the finality of criminal judgments when no valid grounds for review exist.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

seguente ORDINANZA sul ricorso proposto da: BEVILACQUA MARCO nato a SIDERNO il 24/10/1982 avverso la sentenza del 19/12/2024 della CORTE APPELLO di REGGIO CALABRIAdato avviso alle parti; udita la relazione svolta dal Consigliere PIETRO SILVESTRI; R.G. n. 2755/2025 CONSIDERATO IN FATTO E IN DIRITTO Visti gli atti, la sentenza impugnata (condanna per il reato di cui all'art. 337 cod. pen.); Esaminato il motivo di ricorso, relativo alla estinzione del reato per prescrizione; Ritenuto il motivo inammissibile in ragione della ritenuta recidiva reiterata e infraquinquennale (cfr. pag. 4 sentenza di primo grado); Rilevato, pertanto, che il ricorso deve essere dichiarato inammissibile, con la condanna del ricorrente al pagamento delle spese processuali e della somma di euro tremila in favore della Cassa delle ammende; P. Q. M. Dichiara inammissibile il ricorso e condanna il ricorrente al pagamento delle spese processuali e della somma di euro tremila in favore della Cassa delle ammende. Così deciso il 14 aprile 2025.