Skip to content
Yalanzhi & PartnersCriminal defence in Russia

Case results

Sentence reduced from 7 years to 4 years 8 months — Article 228, cassation

Article 228 of the Criminal CodeCassationSentence reduced

Before

7 years of imprisonment

After

4 years 8 months

How

The result came from concentrating on defects in the reasoning and on the disproportion of the sentence.

The situation

A case concerning possession of narcotic substances. In the courts below the defence had not succeeded in drawing attention to the gaps in the evidence or to the disproportion of the sentence.

The result

The cassation court reduced the sentence after the argument was refocused on defects in the assessment of the evidence and in the sentence itself.

In detail

Analysis

What changed between the earlier stages and this one

The courts below had assessed part of the evidence formally and had not given proper consideration to the mitigating circumstances. Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a verdict to state the reasons for the sentence imposed; Article 61 of the Criminal Code lists mitigating circumstances the court must address. A verdict that lists them and does not explain their effect has a defect on its face.

Why this is a cassation argument and not an appeal one

Asking a court to be more lenient is an appeal argument, and it dies when the verdict enters into force. Showing that the sentencing reasoning does not meet the requirements the Code imposes is a question of law, and it survives into cassation. The distinction is the reason this complaint succeeded where a differently framed one would have been refused without a hearing.

Published in summary form with identifying details removed. A result obtained in one case is not a prediction for another: outcomes depend on the evidence, the classification and the procedural history of the specific case.

See also

Other case results