Commentary on Judgment No. 19336 of 2023: Plea Bargain on Appeal and Special Power of Attorney

Judgment No. 19336 of March 15, 2023, by the Court of Cassation, represents an important clarification regarding plea bargain procedures on appeal, particularly concerning the role of the defense counsel and the presence of the defendant. The subject of the judgment focuses on the defendant's implicit waiver of appearance at the hearing when granting a special power of attorney to their defense counsel.

The Regulatory Context

According to Article 599 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendant has the option to grant a special power of attorney to their lawyer to conclude the trial in the appeal phase. The Court, in this case, established that such a power of attorney implies a tacit consent by the defendant not to be present at the chamber hearing. This is particularly relevant for detained defendants, as it avoids the need for them to be transported to court, a process that can be complex and burdensome.

Plea bargain on appeal - Special power of attorney to defense counsel to conclude the trial pursuant to art. 599 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Implicit waiver by the detained defendant of appearance at the hearing - Existence - Consequences. A defendant who grants a special power of attorney to their defense counsel to conclude the trial with a plea bargain on appeal implicitly consents to the chamber hearing for the trial proceedings taking place in their absence, thus they should not be transported if detained and have not expressly requested to be heard, nor should they be heard by the supervisory magistrate if they are held in a location outside the jurisdiction of the presiding judge.

Implications of the Judgment

The consequences of the judgment are manifold and reflect on various aspects of criminal law. Firstly, the decision clarifies that the implicit waiver of presence at the hearing should not be interpreted as a violation of the right to defense, but rather as a strategic choice that the defendant can adopt. It is important to emphasize that, although the defendant may choose not to be present, they still have the right to request to be heard, should they wish to do so.

• Freedom of choice: The defendant can independently decide how to proceed, placing trust in their legal representative.
• Resource savings: The possibility of not being transported to court avoids logistical and security burdens.
• Defense strategy: Absence can prove advantageous in certain circumstances, facilitating smoother case management.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 19336 of 2023 offers an important reflection on the role of the defendant and their defense counsel in the context of a plea bargain on appeal. The possibility of implicitly waiving presence in court, as established by the Court, not only simplifies procedures but also ensures a more strategic approach to criminal proceedings. It is crucial for defendants to be informed about their options and the consequences of their choices, so as to best exercise their rights within the legal system.