Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
Ordinanza — n. 33924/2025 — snpen KI-generiert

Criminal appeal dismissed for manifest unfoundedness regarding prescription suspension and generic evidence attack.

Geschäftsnummer Ordinanza — n. 33924/2025 — snpen
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Italien (IT)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The court declared the criminal appeal inadmissible due to manifest unfoundedness. The appellant contested the statute of limitations extinction without accounting for 425 days of suspension that delayed the deadline to April 2025, and made a generic attack on the evidence. The court rejected these arguments because the procedural facts were ignored and the evidence evaluation was found complete and logically consistent.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art. 337 c.p.; Art. 616 c.p.p.: An appeal is inadmissible if it contests the extinction of the crime by prescription without considering statutory suspensions that extend the deadline, and if it makes a generic attack on the evidence without specific grounds.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
manifest unfoundedness prescription suspension statute of limitations generic evidence attack criminal appeal inadmissibility procedural facts logical coherence Aussetzungsfrist

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Art. 337 c.p.
Art. 616 c.p.p.
art. 616 cod. proc. pen
KI-generiert
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. 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.
Ordinanza — n. 6084/2022 — snpen
Italian Court dismisses appeal as all grounds are inadmissible due to prior prescription and lack of merit.
Ordinanza — n. 27914/2024 — snpen
Cassation court dismisses appeal as generic and repetitive of lower court's reasoned decisions.
Ordinanza — n. 26147/2023 — snpen
Italian Court dismisses appeal as arguments were already adequately examined and rejected by lower court.

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

ORDINANZA S1ir"'7(A—.j -:"3 da: Le • 'C-.• nato a TARANTO il 30/CCV1997 avvei•A.) del 07/01/2025 della CORTE APPELLO SEZ.DIST. di TARANTOdato ,-...•;!v A. .- ,.,„e ..,..] •i•; odiu! !,•_; ims 1,,-....:' ,A.( :,,.(-)ita dal Consigliere BENEDETTO PATERNO RADDUSA; — / letto il ricorso proposto nell'interesse di Antonio Lomartire avverso la sentenza in epigrafe; esaminati gli atti e il provvedimento impugnato; ritenuto che il ricorso è inammissibile perché per un verso, in termini di manifesta infondatezza, contesta l'intervenuta estinzione per prescrizione del reato ex art 337 cp ( consumato il 26 agosto 2016) contestato al ricorrente in epoca antecedente alla sentenza impugnata ( risalente al 16 gennaio 2025) senza tenere conto delle cause di sospensione del relativo decorso riscontate nelle fasi di merito per complessivi 425 giorni, tale da spostare al 26 aprile 2025 la relativa data di perenzione mentre, per il resto, del tutto genericamente contrasta la valutazione del materiale probatorio posto fondamento del giudizio di responsabilità che appare invece completa, coerente al dato processuale acquisito, immune da manifeste incongruenze logiche rilevato che all'inammissibilità del ricorso conseguono le pronunce di cui all'art. 616 cod. proc. pen.

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 in data 7 luglio 2025.