Automated Summary
Key Facts
Belkial Nour Eddine appeals against a six-month prison sentence for an offense under art. 387-bis of the Italian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of Cassation declares the appeal inadmissible, ruling that the grounds (illegitimacy of arrest in flagrante, lack of consent, and errors in legal qualification) fall outside the scope of permissible cassation appeals under the 2017 procedural code amendments. The court emphasizes that post-2017 law only allows appeals challenging issues like juridical misclassification, voluntariness of plea, or illegal sentencing.
Issues
- The fourth issue is the alleged excessiveness of the penalty. The defense argues that the six months' imprisonment was overly harsh. The court, however, found this argument does not meet the criteria for cassation as established by the 2017 amendments.
- The fifth issue involves the defense's assertion that the court made an error in balancing factors and recognizing the defendant's recidivism. The court determined these arguments are inadmissible under the new procedural rules, which restrict cassation grounds to specific categories.
- The third issue is the incorrect legal qualification of the offense. The defense contends that the court erred in how the crime was legally categorized. However, the court ruled that this argument is inadmissible under the current legal framework, which requires the error to be manifest or clearly eccentric.
- The second issue concerns the voluntariness of the defendant's consent to the plea agreement. The defense claims the defendant only wanted to 'recover his freedom,' indicating a defect in the consent process. The court found this argument inadmissible as it does not pertain to the allowed grounds for cassation.
- The first issue raised is the alleged illegality of the arrest in flagrante, which the defense argues was the basis for the plea agreement. The court determined that this argument does not fall under the permissible grounds for cassation as per the 2017 law changes.
Holdings
The court declared the appeal inadmissible, stating that the grounds for appeal exceed those permissible under the law, specifically citing the lack of valid legal errors related to the defendant's consent, legal qualification, or sentencing. The court emphasized that post-2017 procedural reforms limit cassation grounds to errors in the expression of the defendant's will, incorrect legal qualification of the facts, mismatch between the request and the sentence, or illegal sentencing, none of which were demonstrated. The appeal's claims of erroneous legal qualification and lack of consent were deemed unsubstantiated and apodictic.
Remedies
- The court declares the appeal inadmissible with a de plano procedure because the grounds for appeal are not admissible following the 2017 procedural code amendments. As a consequence, the appellant is condemned to pay the court costs and a sum of 3,000 euros to the ammende (fines).
- The appellant is condemned to pay court costs and a sum of 3,000 euros in ammende (fines) due to the inadmissibility of the appeal.
Monetary Damages
3000.00
Legal Principles
The court declared the appeal inadmissible under procedural reforms (Law 103/2017), emphasizing that cassation grounds must strictly address errors in legal qualification, lack of correlation between the request and sentence, or illegal penalties. The appeal's arguments (e.g., challenging the patteggiamento's voluntariness) fell outside these permissible grounds.
Precedent Name
- Oboroceanu
- Brughitta
- Bouaroua
- Bisignani
Cited Statute
- Codice di Procedura Penale (Criminal Procedure Code)
- Legge n. 103 del 2017 (Law 103/2017)
- Codice Penale (Penal Code)
Judge Name
- Massimo Ricciarelli
- Antonio Costantini
Passage Text
- Con il ricorso la difesa deduce la nullità del procedimento che è pervenuto al patteggiamento sul presupposto dell'illegittimità dell'arresto in flagranza, consenso contrario e vizi di volontà sull'assunto che il ricorrente volesse solo "recuperare la propria libertà", omessa dichiarazione ex art. 129 cod. proc. pen., erronea qualificazione giuridica, eccessività della pena, erroneo bilanciamento e riconoscimento della recidiva.
- La contestazione dell'erronea qualificazione giuridica del fatto, invero, risulta inconsistente e si risolve in una formula vuota di contenuti nella parte in cui rappresenta l'adesione al precedente accordo data dal P.M.; si deve ribadire che l'erronea qualificazione giuridica può essere fatta valere con il ricorso per cassazione solo quando risulti, con indiscussa immediatezza, palesemente eccentrica (Sez. 6, n. 15009 del 27/11/2012, dep. 2013, Bisignani, Rv. 254865) o risulti frutto di un errore manifesto (Sez. 3, n. 34902 del 24/06/2015, Brughitta, Rv. 264153).
- Il ricorso, invero, è ammesso ai sensi dell'art. 448, comma 2-bis, cod. proc. pen. solo per motivi attinenti all'espressione della volontà dell'imputato, all'erronea qualificazione giuridica del fatto, al difetto di correlazione tra la richiesta e la sentenza e all'illegalità della pena o della misura di sicurezza, nessuno dei quali dedotto dal ricorrente (cfr. Sez. 2, n. 4727 del 11/01/2018, Oboroceanu, Rv. 272014).