this Provincial Court In 2018, it lifted the suspension of the two-and-a-half-year prison sentence for a drunk and drug-driving driver. Fatally passed over a cyclist in Villena and injured his 8-year-old son, who was riding another bike. accused, who he will have to go to jail soonHe pleaded guilty at the hearing in November 2021. Criminal court no. 4 in AlicanteThe owner agreed to a postponement of his sentence, provided that he did not commit a crime within four years.
this lawyer Cristina Costa, conducting private prosecution on behalf of the person’s family deceased cyclist, Antonio Diaz, objected to the judge’s decision, stating that the accused posed a “public danger” and that there were no legal conditions to allow his suspension. Despite the prosecution’s objection that the prison sentence be suspended, the Third Section of the trial accepted the lawyer’s objection and ordered that he serve the sentence “without further delay”.
The special prosecutor’s office has already made a request to the court. execute the sentence and to consider whether it is appropriate to rescind the suspension, which was sentenced to an additional two and a half years by the same institution for assaulting and attempting to rape a minor in Villena.
No honest life guarantee
At trial order, the prisoner offers “scarce guarantees of living an honest life in freedom” and that the conditions for benefiting from the suspension of sentence are not favorable. For the Third Division court, The suspension of the sentence was not “proportionate and justified”.
The accident occurred on July 8, 2018, on the road from Villena to Biar. Antonio Díaz was fatally crushed while riding a bike with his injured 8-year-old son. The applicant ran relentlessly to help them, and when he was arrested, he tested positive for alcohol and drugs.
The trial was held in November 2021, and the defendant pleaded guilty after a consent agreement between the parties. The prosecutor demanded two prison sentences, first of which was 4 and 3 years. Manslaughter for gross negligence and negligence of rescue duty in competition with a crime against traffic safety. Following the settlement, it reduced the request to two years and six months in prison for both offenses, while estimating the mitigating circumstances of the crime. compensation and confession. The special prosecutor’s office complied with the request, but showed that it objected to the postponement of the sentence.
4. The Criminal Court of First Instance imposed the sentence according to the agreement between the parties, but allowed the suspension of the sentence and now this penalty has been lifted. According to the court, the accused, despite being sentenced to more than two years in prison, cannot accept the exceptional postponement of his sentence and draws attention to the following: There is nothing to justify it.
Thus, Chapter Three emphasizes the seriousness of the crimes as “a greater condemnation of the facts” and states that while the relevant penalties were imposed, by paying the death penalty, his sentence was “significantly reduced”. The cyclist, however, was paid not by himself, but by the insurance company. The court further stated that “the fact of admitting the facts in the act of adjudication brings him, again without further discussion, an analogical mitigation, an appreciation of confession”.
Forced sentence reduction
According to the Court, the prisoner “saw that the length of his sentence was significantly shortened in a way that, although understandable, could somehow be described as coercion.”
Likewise, the courtHe has two convictions to his credita subsequent conviction for two counts of sexual abuse and serious injury, one for robbery prior to the events in question (although it can be rescinded) and after the events preceding the event that is the subject of this case”. He was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for attempting and also arrested him.
While not facts of the same nature, the Court found that these sentences “offer little guarantee of the prisoner’s leading an honest life in freedom and that his personal circumstances referred to in Article 80.3 of the Criminal Code are not in favour”, so the decision to suspend the sentence is appropriate.