BGH 5 StR 287/11•Criminal settlement: no unlawful pressure through sentencing range warning
BGH 5 StR 287/11Bgh / Criminal Chamber 529 de ago. de 2011Dismissed
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the defendants’ revisions against a Berlin Regional Court judgment. It held that the complaint based on §§ 136a and 244(2) StPO was inadmissible and, in any event, insufficiently substantiated. The trial court was allowed to explain that the aggravated sentencing range under § 250(3) StGB would only be available in the event of a confession; this did not constitute unlawful pressure or an arbitrary sentencing threat within the meaning of § 257c StPO. Costs were imposed on each appellant.
§§ 136a, 257c StPO; § 250 Abs. 3 StGB; admissibility and merits of a complaint against a plea-related judicial warning: A trial court may inform the accused that the aggravated sentencing range under § 250(3) StGB will only be open in the event of a confession if this reflects the legal sentencing framework; such a reference does not, by itself, amount to impermissible coercion or an arbitrary 'Sanktionsschere' (consid. 1 ff.). A challenge alleging unlawful pressure must be sufficiently substantiated on appeal; conclusory assertions are inadequate. If the revision is unsuccessful, the costs are borne by the appellants under § 349(2) StPO.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-08-29
Aktenzeichen: 5 StR 287/11
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 136a StPO, § 257c StPO, § 250 Abs 3 StGB
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Berlin, 15. März 2011, Az: (503) 2 St Js 1194/10 KLs (37/10), Urteilnachgehend BVerfG, 19. März 2013, Az: 2 BvR 2628/10, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 5. Strafsenat
Verständigung im Strafverfahren wegen schweren Raubes: Drohung mit "Sanktionsschere"
Die Revisionen der Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Berlin vom 15. März 2011 werden nach § 349 Abs. 2 StPO als unbegründet verworfen.
Jeder Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten seines Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:
Jenseits der vom Generalbundesanwalt zutreffend als unzulässig angesehenen Rüge einer Verletzung der §§ 136a und 244 Abs. 2 StPO entnimmt der Senat dem Revisionsvorbringen eine noch zulässig erhobene Beanstandung der Anwendung des § 257c StPO.
Diese greift indes in der Sache nicht durch. Das Landgericht durfte den Angeklagten vor Augen halten, dass im Verurteilungsfall nur unter der Voraussetzung eines Geständnisses der Strafrahmen des § 250 Abs. 3 StGB eröffnet sein könnte. Eine Drohung mit einer willkürlich bemessenen „Sanktionsschere“ liegt deshalb nicht vor. Zu allen darüber hinausgehenden Behauptungen unzulässigen Drucks fehlt es schon an ausreichendem Revisionsvortrag. Abgesehen davon ist insoweit ersichtlich nichts erwiesen.
Basdorf Brause Schaal
Schneider König
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the defendants’ revisions should be dismissed under § 349(2) StPO.
The revisions were manifestly unfounded and were dismissed.
The Court found no reversible error in the challenged judgment.
Whether the trial court violated §§ 136a and 244(2) StPO by exerting unlawful pressure.
The complaint was inadmissible; in any event, the record did not support the allegation.
The Federal Court of Justice agreed with the General Federal Prosecutor that this ground was inadmissible and found no sufficient substantiation or proof of coercive conduct.
Whether the trial court’s reference to the sentence range under § 250(3) StGB in connection with a confession violated § 257c StPO.
No unlawful pressure arose from pointing out that the aggravated sentencing range would only be available upon a confession.
It is permissible to inform the accused that, in the event of conviction, the sentencing range of § 250(3) StGB could be opened only if they confessed; this does not amount to an arbitrary 'sentencing scissors' threat.
Who bears the costs of the revisions.
Each appellant bears the costs of his or her own remedy.
The revisions were unsuccessful.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.