Criminal appeal dismissed; sentence for theft upheld as not manifestly excessive despite prior failures.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a two-year prison sentence for theft committed jointly with others. The appellant argued the sentence was excessive, but the court noted his history of probation failure and prior incarceration for similar crimes. Consequently, the court found no merit in the appeal and ordered the sentence to run from the date of dismissal.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IACriminal Code Cap. 154 ss. 232, 262; Criminal Procedure Law Cap. 155 s. 147(1): An appeal against a sentence for theft is dismissed where the trial judge properly considered the offender's prior record and lack of rehabilitation, finding the sentence not manifestly excessive.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*264] 1970 December 8
(VASSILIADES, P.,TRIANTAFYLLIDES, STAVRINIDES, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Georghios Zinonos, alias KOKOS,
Appellant,
V.
The Police,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3213)
Criminal Law - Sentence - Two years imprisonment for stealing - Criminal Code Cap. 154 sections 232 and 262 - Appeal against sentence - Appellant unable to profit by various lenient sentences previously imposed upon him - Appeal dismissed.
Criminal Procedure - Practice - Appeal - Dismissal - Order that sentence should run from date of dismissal - Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155 s. 147(1).
Sentence - Appeal against sentence - See under "Criminal Law".
Appellant in person.
S. Nicolaides, Counsel, of the Republic, for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
VASSILIADES, P.:This is an appeal against a sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed on the [*265] appellant in the District Court of Limassol noon his conviction for committing a number off larcenies together with other persons jointly charged with the appellant who are not now before us. The appeal was taken by the appellant in person on the ground that the sentence imposed by the trial Judge is manifestly excessive.
In measuring sentence in this case, the trial Judge took into consideration at the request of appellant's advocate seven other cases of similar nature, as shown in the record. The judge also took into consideration that this particular appellant had been placed under the supervision of a probation officer in the past after a Court conviction; and that he had been an inmate of the Reform School for a period. Moreover, the judge took also into account that the appellant served a term of six months' imprisonment for housebreaking and stealing, about a year before the commission of the offences for which the Court was now imposing sentence. The judge had also before him a social, investigation report (copy of which was supplied to appellant's advocate) which shows that unfortunately the appellant is a person who has not yet been able to profit by the opportunities to gather useful experience which were offered to him by various sentences previously imposed upon him.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal; and no justification whatsoever for interfering with the sentence imposed by the trial Judge. (See Pullen v. The Republic (1970) 4, J.S.C. 348 at 353). This appeal is, therefore, dismissed; the sentence to run according to law from today, as provided in section 147(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155.
Appeal dismissed.