BGH 1 StR 307/13•Revision in stalking case dismissed; non-entry order set aside
BGH 1 StR 307/13Bgh / Câmara Penal I8 de ago. de 2013Partially Granted
Extraído pela Omnilex
In a revision proceeding arising from a stalking conviction, the Federal Court of Justice set aside the Regional Court of Munich I's order that had rejected the defendant's revision as inadmissible. However, after examining the admissible revision on the merits, the court found no legal error adverse to the defendant and dismissed the revision as unfounded. The defendant must bear the costs of the revision.
§ 346 Abs. 2 StPO, § 349 Abs. 2 StPO; where a lower court wrongly rejects a revision as inadmissible, the appellate court may set aside that order, yet still dismiss the revision on the merits if review of the judgment reveals no reversible legal error. The setting aside of the inadmissibility order does not affect the separate assessment that the appeal itself is unfounded; costs of the unsuccessful revision are borne by the appellant.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2013-08-08
Aktenzeichen: 1 StR 307/13
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 20 StGB, § 21 StGB, § 63 StGB, § 238 Abs 1 StGB, § 238 Abs 2 StGB
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG München I, 18. Dezember 2012, Az: 9 KLs 235 Js 215202/11, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 1. Strafsenat
Strafverfahren wegen jahrelanger Nachstellung: Unterbringung des Täters in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus
Der Beschluss des Landgerichts München I vom 25. April 2013, mit dem die Revision des Angeklagten als unzulässig verworfen wurde, wird aus den zutreffenden Gründen der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts vom 17. Juni 2013 aufgehoben (§ 346 Abs. 2 StPO).
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts München I vom 18. Dezember 2012 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils aufgrund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben hat (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten seiner Revision zu tragen.
Wahl Jäger Cirener
Radtke Mosbacher
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the Regional Court's order rejecting the revision as inadmissible should stand
The order rejecting the revision as inadmissible was set aside for the reasons stated in the Federal Prosecutor General's submission.
The higher court accepted the submission that the inadmissibility ruling could not stand.
Whether the defendant's revision against the Regional Court judgment was well founded
The revision was unfounded and was dismissed.
Review of the judgment on the basis of the grounds of appeal did not reveal any legal error adverse to the defendant.
Who bears the costs of the revision
The appellant must bear the costs of the revision.
Costs followed the unsuccessful revision.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.