Petition to the Supreme Court in the criminal case of extortion
Attention! The Law and Law Law Company draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation. For more information, please contact lawyer Kenesbek Islam by phone.; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (727) 971-78-58.
Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Lawyer ............... legal address: Almaty ........... Tel. 8 ..............
acting in the interests of the convicted person ............... 02.09.1982 G.R.,
convicted under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal
Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to 3 years of imprisonment
THE PETITION
on the revision of the verdict of the district court that has entered into legal force No.2 of the Bostandyk district of Almaty dated 06/25/20... of the year, resolutions of the judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated 08/01/20... of the year
By the verdict of the district court No. 2 of the Bostandyk district of Almaty dated 07/25/20... ................ He was found guilty of committing a crime under paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment in an institution of the medium-security penal system.. By the decision of the judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated 08/01/20..., the verdict was left unchanged, the appeal was dismissed. I do not agree with the judicial acts issued and I believe that the conclusions of the courts do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case and the actions of my client are subject to retraining. According to ch. 5 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the procedure for criminal proceedings in the Cassation instance" No. 5 dated June 29, 2017, "the grounds for reviewing judicial acts that have entered into force should be considered violations of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens committed during pre-trial proceedings or judicial review, or such improper application of criminal and criminal lawprocedural laws that have entailed the occurrence of at least one of the consequences specified in the first part of Article 485 of the CPC."
Petition to the Supreme Court in the criminal case of extortion
Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 485 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan stipulates that "the grounds for the cassation review of judicial acts that have entered into force, specified in the first part of Article 484 of this Code, are violations of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens committed during the investigation or judicial review of the case, or the improper application of criminal and criminal procedure laws, which incorrect qualification of the convicted person's act, incorrect definition of the type of recidivism and the regime of the correctional institution of the penal system." According to paragraph 6 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 4 dated June 25, 2015 "On certain issues of criminal punishment", "if the sanction of the article of the Criminal Code for which a person is found guilty provides for alternative types of punishments, courts should discuss the possibility of imposing a less severe one, bearing in mind that in accordance with According to the second part of Article 52 of the Criminal Code, a more severe type of punishment is imposed only if a less severe type of punishment cannot achieve the goals of punishment." Contrary to the requirements of the law, the court, when passing sentence on ............... He did not take into account the requirements of Article 53 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which led to the imposition of unfair, excessively harsh punishment, while not applying an alternative type of punishment not related to imprisonment. In addition, the courts did not take into account such mitigating circumstances as voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime, positive characteristics from my place of work, from my place of residence, my client's cooperation with the investigation, reconciliation with the victim that he had not previously been convicted, as well as sincere repentance. The said conviction is subject to change on the following grounds: My client was convicted under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Extortion committed with the use of violence." However, neither the pre-trial investigation nor the judicial investigation produced evidence that violence had been used against the victim. In accordance with Article 393, Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions and is decided only on condition that during the trial the defendant's guilt in committing a criminal offense is confirmed by the totality of evidence examined by the court. According to P. 6 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006 No. 6 "On judicial practice in cases of extortion" "extortion with the use of violence should be understood as the commission of this crime involving restriction of freedom, infliction of physical pain, blows, beatings, causing mild or moderate harm to the victim's health." The court of first instance allowed the one-sidedness and incompleteness of the judicial investigation, the inconsistency of the court's conclusions set out in the verdict with the actual circumstances of the case, and the court incorrectly applied the criminal law.
Petition to the Supreme Court in the criminal case of extortion
In accordance with paragraph 12 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2006 No. 4, c (with amendments and additions dated 06/25/2010) "On certain issues of evidence assessment in criminal cases", a court verdict cannot be recognized as lawful if it is made only on the basis of the testimony of the defendant or victim, which have not been analyzed, They have not been compared for reliability and are not supported by other evidence: witness statements, protocols of procedural actions, expert opinions, physical evidence and other documents., except in cases of consideration of the case in an abbreviated manner provided for in Article 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). During the pre-trial investigation, the victim testified in a stressful state, and during the judicial investigation, the victim was confused when testifying and said that there had been no violence against him, thereby retracting his testimony in court given in the pre-trial investigation. In addition, during the pre-trial investigation, ............ I have fully compensated the material damage caused to the victim. According to Article 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, everyone is considered innocent until his guilt in committing a crime is proven in accordance with the procedure provided for by this Code, no one is obliged to prove his innocence, irremediable doubts about the guilt of the accused are interpreted in his favor, the conviction cannot be based on assumptions and must be confirmed by a sufficient set of reliable evidence. In accordance with part 8 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 13 dated December 19, 2003 "On the practice of considering criminal cases on appeal", "taking into account the requirements of Part 1 of Article 424 of the CPC, the court of appeal, when considering a case on a complaint or protest, is obliged, within its competence, to check how comprehensively, fully and objectively the circumstances of the case have been investigated. in relation to each convicted person, the correctness of the qualification of the crime, the conformity of the punishment to the deed. In accordance with part 2 of Article 426 of the CPC, the appellate instance, upon detection of violations of the rights and legitimate interests of convicted persons, regardless of the arguments of the complaint and protest, has the right to make appropriate changes to the verdict (resolution) aimed at improving the situation or to recognize the verdict (resolution) as illegal and cancel." The severity of a criminal offense depends on the crime committed (Article 11 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). In turn, the personality of the convicted person is characterized by: his age, gender, the form of guilt in committing a crime, the presence of a relapse, a dangerous relapse of crimes on his part, his mental state at the time of the crime, the stage of criminal activity, the type of complicity in the crime, circumstances aggravating or mitigating criminal liability and punishment. It is the combination of these factors that is taken into account by the court of appeal when determining to what extent the punishment imposed by the court of first instance corresponds to the severity of the crime and the personality of the convicted person, whether it is excessively mild or excessively harsh, that is, clearly unfair. The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court did not pay due attention to this case. Despite the absolute absence of evidence of my client's guilt in the crime charged against him, the inconsistency of the conclusions of the court of first instance on the validity of the charge ................... The prosecution, contrary to the requirements of the law obliging the higher authority to eliminate the violations and make up for the shortcomings, ignored the defense arguments set out in the appeal and duplicated the conclusions of the court of first instance, issued an unlawful ruling without finding grounds to change the illegal and unjustified verdict of the district court.
Petition to the Supreme Court in the criminal case of extortion
According to Part 24 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the procedure for criminal proceedings in the Cassation instance" No. 5 dated June 29, 2017, "the grounds for revoking or changing the verdict are the circumstances specified in Article 433 of the CPC. The court of cassation instance, without sending the case for a new judicial review, has the right to change the verdict based on the arguments set out in the prosecutor's protest or the victim's petition."
Based on the above, guided by Articles 484, paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Articles 485, 486, 488, paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 491, paragraph 2 of Part 7 of page 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
ask:
To conduct a preliminary examination of the petition with the request for materials of the criminal case.
2. To submit the petition with the case for consideration at the court session of the cassation instance
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
