Lo spazio di lavoro basato sull'IA per i professionisti del settore legale
Prova gratis per 14 giorni (10 domande/giorno durante la prova)
BGH 2 StR 426/14•Requirements for sentencing wording in subsequent aggregate sentencing
BGH 2 StR 426/14Bgh / II camera penale4 feb 2015Confirmed
Estratto da Omnilex
The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the accused’s revision against the Bonn Regional Court judgment of 12 May 2014 as unfounded, but corrected the operative part of the judgment. The correction clarified that only the single fine imposed by the Bonn District Court for the offence of 22 September 2012 was included in the subsequent aggregate sentence, while the earlier aggregate sentence order was dissolved. The total sentence remained four years and six months. The accused was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal.
§ 267 StPO, § 55 StGB; requirements of the operative part in subsequent aggregate sentencing: The judgment tenor must make clear which individual sentences, and for which individual acts of an earlier conviction, are included in the newly formed aggregate sentence. It is insufficient if this allocation can only be inferred from the reasons. If the reasons show that only one specific prior single sentence was incorporated, the tenor may be corrected accordingly without affecting the dismissal of the revision on the merits (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-02-04
Aktenzeichen: 2 StR 426/14
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 267 StPO, § 55 StGB
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Bonn, 12. Mai 2014, Az: 22 KLs 49/13
Spruchkörper: 2. Strafsenat
Nachträgliche Gesamtstrafenbildung: Anforderungen an die Urteilsformel
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Bonn vom 12. Mai 2014 wird mit der Maßgabe als unbegründet verworfen, dass der Urteilstenor dahin berichtigt wird, dass der Angeklagte unter Einbeziehung der für die Tat vom 22. September 2012 verhängten Einzelgeldstrafe aus dem Urteil des Amtsgerichts Bonn vom 24. Januar 2013 (76 Ds-920 Js 676/12-410/12) und unter Auflösung des Gesamtstrafenbeschlusses des Amtsgerichts Bonn vom 3. Mai 2013 (76 Ds-920 Js 676/12-410/12) zu einer Gesamtfreiheitsstrafe von vier Jahren und sechs Monaten verurteilt ist.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten seines Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
1 Da sich aus der Formel des Urteils ergeben muss, welche Einzelstrafen für welche Einzeltaten einer früheren Verurteilung in die nachträglich zu bildende Gesamtstrafe einbezogen werden (vgl. Schäfer/Sander/van Gemmeren, Praxis der Strafzumessung, 5. Aufl., Rn. 1472), hat der Senat den Urteilstenor dahin berichtigt, dass - wie sich aus den Urteilsgründen ergibt - in die erste Gesamtstrafe nur die Einzelgeldstrafe einbezogen worden ist, die im Urteil des Amtsgerichts Bonn vom 24. Januar 2013 für die Tat vom 22. September 2012 verhängt worden war.
| Fischer | | RiBGH Prof. Dr. Schmitt ist an der Unterschrift gehindert. | | Krehl | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | Fischer | | | | | Eschelbach | | Zeng | |
Estratto da Omnilex
Whether the revision against the Regional Court judgment was well-founded
The revision was unfounded and was dismissed, subject to correction of the judgment tenor.
The Federal Court found only a formal defect in the wording of the sentencing formula; the grounds showed that only the single fine for the offence of 22 September 2012 was included in the first aggregate sentence.
Whether the judgment tenor had to specify which prior single sentence was incorporated into the subsequent aggregate sentence
Yes. The operative part must show which individual sentences for which individual offenses from the earlier conviction were included in the subsequent aggregate sentence.
The court emphasized that the wording of the judgment must disclose the exact prior individual sentence incorporated; the tenor was therefore corrected to match the reasons.
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.