There is an Appeals Court which suspended the execution of criminal sentences, handed down in 2006 due to a "new evidence" obtained in 2005.
An applicant for review, definitely convicted in 2006 for receiving a stolen check, relying on Article. 630, letter c) Code of Criminal Procedure, said that in July 2005 had declared the victim of theft to the police of PS in reality that his check would not have been stolen, but was cheated.
Based on this finding alone demanded, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the sentence and the Court of Appeals, while acknowledging that the declaration was in 2005, but suspended the execution causing the release, if there were other securities custody, notwithstanding that the proof (if indeed such, and that still could have no effect on the crime of receiving stolen property for which he was condemned, but only on the predicate offense that could change from theft to fraud, but without substantial consequences liability) was known and known by the same defendant before he was given the 2006 ruling that sentenced him.
And all this despite the fact that PG, in his opinion, had explained at length that the evidence was not sufficient and it was "old" and consequently that the request for review should be declared inadmissible.
An applicant for review, definitely convicted in 2006 for receiving a stolen check, relying on Article. 630, letter c) Code of Criminal Procedure, said that in July 2005 had declared the victim of theft to the police of PS in reality that his check would not have been stolen, but was cheated.
Based on this finding alone demanded, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the sentence and the Court of Appeals, while acknowledging that the declaration was in 2005, but suspended the execution causing the release, if there were other securities custody, notwithstanding that the proof (if indeed such, and that still could have no effect on the crime of receiving stolen property for which he was condemned, but only on the predicate offense that could change from theft to fraud, but without substantial consequences liability) was known and known by the same defendant before he was given the 2006 ruling that sentenced him.
And all this despite the fact that PG, in his opinion, had explained at length that the evidence was not sufficient and it was "old" and consequently that the request for review should be declared inadmissible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment