A criminal conviction judgment opens a delicate phase: it is not enough to wonder whether the decision is unfair, but it is necessary to understand whether the appeal is admissible, by when it must be filed, and on which points. The operative part read at the hearing, the filing of the reasoning, the penalty applied, and the evidence cited by the judge can concretely affect the choice. A late or generic document actually risks preventing the Court of Appeal from examining the criticism.
In this guide I explain how to navigate after a first-instance conviction. We will see together what distinguishes an understandable disagreement from an effective ground of appeal, why the date from which the deadline runs should not be assumed, and what requests may concern the finding of responsibility, the legal qualification of the act, the penalty, or individual evidence.
When a conviction judgment can be appealed
The rule is that the defendant can appeal a conviction judgment, but the code provides for exceptions that must be identified before preparing the document. Article 593 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure generally recognizes this power to the defendant and also regulates the narrower appeal powers of the public prosecutor. You can read the current text of Article 593 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.
A first exception concerns convictions with the sole penalty of a fine (ammenda) or with the substitute penalty of community service: in these cases, the judgment is unappealable. This does not automatically mean that no possible challenge exists, but it requires identifying the remedy provided by law without calling a document an "appeal" when it is not one.
The actual content of the decision counts, not the label used informally. It is necessary to distinguish a conviction for a single count from a judgment deciding multiple charges, a custodial sentence from a pecuniary penalty, and a request addressing responsibility from criticism limited to the sentencing treatment. This distinction determines both the admissibility of the challenge and the perimeter of the request to be submitted.
The deadline for the appeal: do not start from the most obvious date
The appeal must be proposed within a deadline established by law. Article 585 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure provides for deadlines of fifteen, thirty, or forty-five days, linked to the manner in which the judgment and its reasoning are pronounced or filed. For this reason, the date of the hearing alone is not always sufficient to calculate the last useful day.
If the judge and the reasoning are read simultaneously, the ordinary deadline is shorter. When, instead, the judge reserves the filing of the reasoning, the deadline set for filing it, the expiration of that deadline, and, where applicable, the notice of filing become decisive. The calculation must be anchored to the proceedings' documents: operative part, judgment heading, possible indication of the filing deadline, and communications received.
It is not prudent to wait for an informal copy of the decision or to rely on the fact of not having yet read the reasoning. The reasoning serves to build criticisms, but its filing follows rules that directly affect the starting point. When little time remains, the priority is to accurately reconstruct the applicable deadline and decide which grounds can be formulated completely and specifically.
The extension of the deadline in trials held in absentia
For a defendant tried in absentia, the deadline is increased by fifteen days when the challenge is proposed by their counsel. This rule continues to operate also for retained counsel: the Constitutional Court deemed unfounded, with a decision filed on July 21, 2026, the issue aimed at limiting the increase solely to court-appointed counsel. This passage can be verified in the decision of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Gazette.
Being physically absent from a single hearing does not equate, by itself, to being "tried in absentia" in the technical sense required by the rule. The formal conduct of the trial is what matters, as well as the persistence of the state of absence at the time of the decision. It is therefore necessary not to apply the fifteen-day extension by simple analogy.
The grounds of appeal must respond to the judgment
The appeal is not a generic request to retry the case. Article 581 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure requires a written document identifying the challenged measure, the contested counts or points, the evidence deemed nonexistent, unexamined, or incorrectly evaluated, the requests, and the factual and legal reasons supporting them. The structure of the document and the presentation methods are reported in the institutional fact sheet on the reform of challenges.
A specific ground starts from a reason expressed in the judgment and indicates its problem. If the judge considers a witness reliable for certain reasons, it is not enough to state that such a witness is not credible: it is necessary to indicate which passage of the reasoning overlooks a piece of data, contradicts a document, incorrectly interprets a statement, or applies an irrelevant legal rule.
Every request must have its own argumentative basis. The request for acquittal, the request for a different legal qualification, the exclusion of an aggravating circumstance, the recognition of a mitigating circumstance, and the reduction of the penalty are distinct requests. They can coexist in the same appeal, but each must explain which facts, evidence, or rules lead to the requested result.
Errors that make the challenge fragile
Repeating the conclusions of the first-instance defense without comparing them with the answers given by the judge often leaves the ground lacking the necessary link to the judgment. The same happens if documents or testimonies are listed without explaining why that single element could have changed the decision on the contested point.
It is equally important to distinguish between a dispute over the reconstruction of facts and an error of law. In the first case, the criticism concerns, for example, how statements, a video recording, or an expert report were read. In the second, it concerns the application of the incriminatory rule, circumstances, statute of limitations, or rules on penalties. The distinction clarifies to the Court what control is being requested of it.
What the Court of Appeal can decide
The Court of Appeal examines the points of the judgment addressed by the grounds. The appeal does not require contesting every part of the decision: it can be focused on responsibility, a single crime, an aggravating circumstance, the penalty, civil provisions, or multiple aspects together. However, what is not devolved with adequate criticism normally remains outside the core of the discussion.
If the goal is to contest the conviction, the grounds must show why the evidence does not allow the finding of responsibility or why the act does not constitute the alleged crime. If, instead, responsibility is not contested, an appeal can focus on sentencing: base penalty, increases or decreases, circumstances, benefits, and criteria adopted by the judge. A more circumscribed request is not a minor request: it must still be legally founded and linked to the reasoning.
When only the defendant appeals, the prohibition of reformatio in peius provided by Article 597 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure applies: the Court cannot apply a heavier penalty in kind or quantity. However, this guarantee must not be extended beyond its essential condition. If the public prosecutor also challenges the judgment, one cannot rely on the prohibition as if the appeal came solely from the defendant.
The request for new evidence or reopening of proceedings
The reopening of evidence on appeal is not automatic. Anyone requesting to hear a person again, acquire an evidentiary element, or carry out an assessment must link the request to a controversial point and explain why the files already available do not allow for a correct decision. It does not serve to reopen the first-instance judgment without limits.
An evidentiary request has greater coherence when it identifies the evidence, the fact it should prove, and its impact on the challenged decision. For example, it is not enough to indicate that a witness could clarify the facts: it is necessary to specify which relevant circumstance was not ascertained or was erroneously evaluated and why that evidence is necessary with respect to the proposed ground.
Filing of the document and specific aspects of defense in absentia
The document must be filed with the registry of the judge who issued the measure, in accordance with the procedures established for filing documents in criminal proceedings. Defense counsel must use the telematic channel when regulations require it; the private party may also personally present the document through an appointee at the registry of the judge who issued the judgment. Non-compliant procedures can create an issue of admissibility, even if the grounds are well-founded.
For challenges filed from August 25, 2024, Law No. 114 of 2024 eliminated the generalized obligation to attach a declaration or election of domicile with the challenge. It also limited the requirement for a specific mandate subsequent to the judgment to the court-appointed counsel of a defendant tried in absentia. The amendments result from Law No. 114 of August 9, 2024, which entered into force on August 25, 2024.
Filing is not a detail separate from content. Deadline, signature, power to challenge, transmission methods, and completeness of the document all contribute to admissibility. To address the decision in an orderly manner, it is useful to keep together the complete judgment, the transcript or operative part, the notices of filing received, and documents concerning precisely the points to be contested.
Broad appeal or targeted appeal: two different choices
Contesting everything is not always the most effective solution. A broad appeal can be consistent when the conviction derives from an overall reconstruction deemed erroneous: in that case, the grounds must link the various criticisms to the judge's reasoning. A selective appeal, instead, is appropriate when responsibility is not contested, but there are concrete reasons to discuss an aggravating circumstance, the calculation of the penalty, or the failure to recognize a benefit.
The choice also changes the final request. If responsibility is contested, the request can aim at acquittal or a different legal definition of the act. If only the penalty is discussed, the request must indicate the requested result and the legal path justifying it. The decisive point is the consistency between the denounced error and the requested result, not the number of grounds included in the document.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I appeal a conviction to a fine only?
Generally no: Article 593 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure considers judgment of conviction with the sole penalty of a fine unappealable. However, it is necessary to distinguish the unappealability of the appeal from the possible availability of a different remedy. The penalty actually applied and the type of measure indicate which verification is necessary.
Within how many days must I file the criminal appeal?
The ordinary deadlines are fifteen, thirty, or forty-five days, according to the methods of pronouncement and filing of the reasoning provided by Article 585 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. Do not choose the deadline based solely on the date of the hearing: always verify the operative part, the reasoning filing deadline, and communications relating to its filing.
Can I limit the appeal to the penalty without contesting guilt?
Yes, the appeal can be circumscribed to the sentencing treatment, circumstances, benefits, or a single count of the decision. However, the request must explain what error the reasoning on the penalty contains and what modification is requested. Unreasoned disagreement does not replace a specific ground.
Is it sufficient to write that the judge did not evaluate the evidence well?
No, it is necessary to indicate the concrete error. The ground must link the evidence to the reason expressed in the judgment: which document, statement, or assessment was omitted, misrepresented, or illogically evaluated and why that point affects the conviction or penalty. Criticism must respond to the reasoning, not merely reiterate a different reading of the facts.
If only I appeal, can the penalty increase?
When the sole appellant is the defendant, the prohibition of worsening applies, as provided by Article 597 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. This guarantee does not operate in the same way if the public prosecutor has also proposed a challenge. Before assessing procedural risk, it is therefore essential to know the content and subject matter of all challenges filed.
A step not to be postponed
The first check concerns the deadline, because potentially well-founded criticism cannot be examined if the challenge is late or inadmissible. After identifying the useful date, the judgment must be read to separate the contestable counts from the reasons supporting them and formulate requests proportional to the errors actually found. If you wish to address these steps with professional discussion, you can contact me.