Should Women Get Brazilians

Dubra, David D. and another

Tribunal: Sup Court
Date: 21/09/2004
Parties: Dubra, David D. and another

CRIMINAL (RESOURCES) - Complaint - Deadline for filing - Computer - Notification to accused of conviction

Buenos Aires, September 21, 2004 .- Considering: 1) That the 2nd room of the House National Criminal Appeal declared inadmissible an appeal brought by the public defender against the pronouncement of the Oral Criminal Court No. 19 of this city, at the point I imposed on David D. Dubra the criminal only thirteen years and six months in prison, legal and ancillary costs and, in point II, kept the repeat statement regarding the appointment. Against this ruling concluded a special appeal, the denial of which gave rise to this complaint.
2) That the complaint has been filed on time, given the statement by the public defender as to the dates on which it was notified of the will of the accused-recursive by a letter from their place of detention, and were received the principal record (pages 34).
3) that, in this regard, it is immaterial that the defense had been notified a month before the dismissal of the extraordinary (folio 32), since this should be taken into account in calculating the period in filing the complaint is personal to the defendant notice of the decision that brings the strength of conviction, since the possibility of obtaining a new court ruling through legal recourse is an option of the accused, and not a technical power and defense- possible precautions to ensure compliance with the full right of defense (conf failures 311:2502 [1], 322:1343, Petracchi judge's vote).
4) That, once the question of the timeliness of the direct filing, it should be noted that the grievance raised by the appellant is inadmissible (art. 280 CPCCN. [2]).
therefore dismissing the complaint. Let it be known and filed .- Enrique S. Petracchi .- Juan C. Eugene R. Maqueda .- Zaffaroni .- Elena I. Highton de Nolasco. According to their vote: Augusto C. Belluscio .- Carlos S. Fayt. In dissent, Antonio Boggiano.
VOTE DR. Belluscio .- Considering: That the complaint has been filed out of time (art. 285 CPCCN.).
therefore dismissing the complaint. Let it be known and filed.
VOTE DR. FAYT .- Considering: 1) That the 2 nd room of the National Chamber of Criminal Appeal declared inadmissible an appeal brought by the public defender against the pronouncement of the Oral Criminal Court No. 19 of this city, at the point I imposed on David D. Dubra the criminal only thirteen years and six months in prison, legal accessory and costs and, in Section II, kept the repeat statement regarding the appointment. Against this ruling concluded a special appeal, the denial of which gave rise to this complaint.
2) That the complaint has been filed on time, given the statement by the public defender as to the dates on which it was notified of the will of the accused-recursive by a letter from their place of detention, and were received the principal record (pages 34).
3) that, in this regard, it is irrelevant that the dismissal of the special had been notified prior to the defense, since for the computation of the deadline for filing the complaint must be taken into account personal notice to the accused. Otherwise would admit that a conviction become final with the only line of defense in any way temper consistent with positive the protection that deserves preferential legal defense in court (conf arg. Faults 311:2502 and 323:1440 [ 3], dissent of Judge Fayt).
4) That, once the question of the timeliness of the direct filing, it should be noted that the grievance raised by the appellant is inadmissible (art. 280 CPCCN.).
therefore dismissing the complaint. Let it be known and filed. Dissent
DR. BOGGIANO .- Whereas: The issue discussed is substantially similar cars the treated and settled by this Court in the case "Albarenque" (Failure 322:1329, dissent of Judge Boggiano), whose rationale and conclusions can be transmitted by reason of brevity.
Therefore, it makes room for complaint. Accumulate the principal. Get to know and refer to the original court to proceed as set forth in the decision cited above.