A criminal conviction can be challenged, but the remedy varies depending on the type of decision, the procedural stage and the error you intend to raise. You might want to challenge the reconstruction of facts, the reliability of evidence, the legal classification of the offense or solely the penalty applied. The first question, however, often concerns the available time: deadlines do not always run from the day the judge pronounces the sentence.
In this guide I want to help you distinguish an appeal from an appeal plea bargain, a Supreme Court appeal from a revision, and a critique of the reasoning from a simple request to reassess the trial. We will also see the consequences of waiving a ground and why new evidence does not automatically open another proceeding.
Which conviction do you want to challenge?
Not all convictions follow the same path. The judgment issued after an ordinary trial, the one pronounced in the abbreviated trial and the decision applying a penalty upon request of the parties are subject to different rules. Even the criminal penal decree follows its own rules, based on opposition rather than an ordinary appeal.
An appeal is normally the first remedy against a trial conviction judgment, barring exceptions provided by law. Article 593 of the code of criminal procedure grants the defendant the possibility to appeal the conviction, while placing specific limits on the public prosecutor's appeal. The text and exceptions can be consulted in Article 593 c.p.p. on Normattiva.
The nature of the decision comes before the grounds. Merely reading the word "conviction" in the dispositive part is not enough to choose the remedy. It is necessary to consider the procedure followed, the judge who decided, the penalty applied, the possible absence of the defendant and the presence of civil rulings in favor of the civil party.
Deadlines and form of the remedy
Ordinary deadlines are fifteen, thirty or forty-five days. The duration depends on the regime provided for filing the reasoning: immediately reasoned decision, reasoning filed within the ordinary term or longer term indicated by the judge. Article 585 c.p.p., amended as part of the criminal trial reform, is reported in Article 33 of Legislative Decree 150/2022.
The starting point does not always coincide with the pronouncement. Depending on the case, the deadline may start from the reading of the ruling, from the expiry of the period assigned to file the reasoning or from the communication or notification of the filing notice. Late filing of the reasoning and rules on the suspension of deadlines can change the calculation: simply adding fifteen, thirty or forty-five days to the hearing date can lead to an error.
For a defendant judged in absentia, the deadlines available to defense counsel are increased by fifteen days. Following the amendments introduced by Law No. 114 of August 9, 2024, retained defense counsel does not need to attach the specific mandate subsequent to the judgment; court-appointed counsel, instead, must file it with the appeal, together with the election or declaration of domicile required by the rule.
The additional fifteen days also remain for retained defense counsel. The Constitutional Court, with judgment No. 136 of July 21, 2026, declared unfounded the question aimed at limiting the increase solely to court-appointed counsel. The distinction between the two counsel thus concerns the specific mandate, not the additional duration of the deadline.
A generic act can be inadmissible. The appeal must identify the contested chapters and points, formulate precise requests and explain the criticism of the factual or legal reasons used by the judge. It is not enough to state that the judgment is unjust or that testimony is not credible: one must indicate which passage is erroneous, for what reason and what different decision is requested.
What the appeal can achieve
The appeal allows a new trial on the contested points. It can concern the reconstruction of facts, the use and evaluation of evidence, the legal classification, the circumstances of the offense, civil liability and the determination of the penalty. However, the court of appeal does not automatically repeat the entire trial: it decides within the limits marked by the admissible grounds.
The criticism must confront the reasoning. If the court considers a witness reliable, the ground must explain which decisive contradictions were ignored or why the conclusion does not follow from the elements cited. If the penalty is contested, it is necessary to distinguish the calculation error from the request to recognize mitigating factors, conditional suspension, non-mention or a substitute penalty.
Evidence is not automatically retaken. The renewal of trial examination provided for by Article 603 c.p.p. can be ordered when the court is unable to decide on the state of the files, when conditions are met to acquire new or supervening evidence, or when taking evidence proves absolutely necessary. The appeal is therefore not a second trial obtainable through a generic request to re-hear witnesses.
If only the defendant appeals, the prohibition of reformatio in peius provided by Article 597 c.p.p. applies: the court cannot apply a heavier penalty nor revoke benefits within the limits established by the rule. If there is also an appeal by the public prosecutor, the risk of a more unfavorable decision must instead be evaluated against the grounds proposed by the prosecution.
The hearing may take place without the participation of the parties. Current regulations provide, in several cases, for a non-participatory chamber proceeding, barring a timely request by the appellant or the defendant or their defense counsel. The citation decree indicates the form provided and the deadline to request participation, normally set at fifteen days from notification.
Plea bargain on grounds and penalty in appeal
The plea bargain is not a new sentencing bargain. In the appeal proceedings, the parties can agree on the total or partial acceptance of certain grounds and waive the others. If the agreement entails a new penalty or the substitution of custodial detention, it must also indicate the outcome agreed upon by the public prosecutor and the defendant.
The agreement requires a selective choice. It can be useful when liability is no longer contested and the real issue concerns, for example, an aggravating circumstance, the balancing of circumstances or the sentencing treatment. It is less suitable if decisive questions on guilt remain, because waiving other grounds reduces what the court is called upon to examine.
The declaration has a peremptory deadline and, pursuant to Article 599-bis c.p.p., must be presented at least fifteen days before the hearing. The agreement does not automatically bind the court, which retains control over the proposed solution. Current regulations are reported in Legislative Decree No. 31 of March 19, 2024.
When Supreme Court review is needed
The Supreme Court is not a third judgment on the facts. The appeal serves to denounce errors included in Article 606 c.p.p.: violations of criminal law, non-observance of penalized procedural rules, exercise of unauthorized powers, failure to take decisive evidence in provided cases and specific flaws in reasoning.
Proposing an alternative reconstruction is not enough. The Court of Cassation does not substitute its own evaluation for that of the trial judges simply because a deposition can be read in two ways. The flaw in reasoning must be missing, contradictory or manifestly illogical and must emerge from the decision or from the acts specifically indicated pursuant to Article 606 c.p.p. on Normattiva.
The appeal must be signed by defense counsel admitted to advocacy before superior jurisdictions. The Court may reject it, declare it inadmissible or annul the judgment with or without remand. Inadmissibility may entail, in addition to procedural expenses, the payment of a sum to the Cassa delle Ammende in cases provided by law.
Immediate appeal against first-instance judgment exists only as a special path and does not transform the Supreme Court into a court of evidence. If the challenge requires a reassessment of facts or denounces typical flaws in reasoning, the appeal normally remains the instance in which to develop criticism.
Revision after a final conviction
Revision concerns an irrevocable conviction. It comes into play when ordinary remedies have ended or are no longer proposable and one of the taxative conditions of Articles 629 et seq. c.p.p. is met. It is not a delayed appeal and does not serve to repeat arguments already examined simply because the convicted person does not share the decision.
Cases include exceptional situations: irreconcilable conflict with another irrevocable decision, lapse of a prejudicial civil or administrative decision, discovery of new evidence which alone or together with that already evaluated demonstrates that the convicted person must be acquitted, or ascertainment that the conviction derives from falsehood or another crime.
New evidence must be capable of changing the outcome. A document already known, a different defensive argument or a simple re-reading of the same statements are not sufficient in themselves. Revision is oriented toward acquittal and does not constitute, as a rule, an instrument to obtain solely a lower penalty.
The request is not subject to the deadline of ordinary remedies, but must specifically indicate reasons and evidence. It is presented personally or via special attorney to the court of appeal identified according to legal criteria, as established by Article 633 c.p.p. on Normattiva. Presentation does not automatically suspend penalty enforcement.
How to choose between different remedies
The procedural stage narrows the alternatives. Before irrevocability you can challenge factual and legal errors permitted by law via appeal; after the appeal judgment you can appeal to the Supreme Court within its limits; after the judgment becomes final, revision is available only if one of its specific conditions emerges.
The plea bargain is a different choice from full appeal. In the first case you agree to waive certain challenges in exchange for a shared solution on accepted grounds and, if relevant, on the penalty. In the second you ask the court to decide on maintained criticisms, accepting that the outcome depends entirely on judicial evaluation.
Before expiry, a few precise data are needed: complete copy of the judgment, date and method of filing the reasoning, notices received, procedure followed, possible declaration of absence and identity of retained or court-appointed defense counsel. Acts directly connected to the grounds to be proposed and truly new elements are then useful, avoiding confusion with documents already present in the file.
Frequently asked questions
How much time do I have to appeal a criminal judgment?
The deadline can be fifteen, thirty or forty-five days, according to the reasoning filing regime. Starting points can depend on reading at the hearing, the expiry of the term assigned to the judge or the filing notice. For this reason, calculation must start from the transcript and notices, not solely from the date written in the judgment.
If I was judged in absentia, do I have more time?
Defense counsel has fifteen additional days compared to the ordinary deadline. The increase applies to both retained and court-appointed counsel. The latter, however, must attach to the appeal the specific mandate issued after judgment and containing the declaration or election of domicile required by Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, c.p.p.
Can the penalty increase if I file an appeal?
If only the defendant appeals, the prohibition of worsening applies within the limits of Article 597 c.p.p. The situation changes if the public prosecutor has also proposed an admissible appeal: in that case the court can intervene unfavorably on points engaged by prosecution grounds.
Can I present new evidence on appeal?
Yes, but it is not automatically admitted. The court evaluates whether conditions of Article 603 c.p.p. are met, considering novelty, decisiveness and the possibility of deciding based on acts already acquired. A generic request to re-hear a witness or reassess all trial evidence does not transform the appeal into a repetition of the first instance.
Is the appeal plea bargain equivalent to a sentencing bargain?
No, they are different institutes. The plea bargain arises within an already proposed appeal and concerns the acceptance of certain grounds, with waiver of others. It can include a new determination or substitution of penalty, but requires agreement of interested parties and court control.
What is the difference between Supreme Court review and revision?
The Supreme Court controls specific legal and motivational errors of a challengeable decision; revision instead concerns an already irrevocable conviction and requires one of exceptional conditions established by law. Decisive new evidence may be relevant for revision, whereas it does not allow transforming the Supreme Court into a new merits court.