Pizzimenti v R [2017] NSWCCA 231

Pizzimenti v R [2017] NSWCCA 231

The sentencing judge was not required to specify the degree of concurrency or accumulation in indicative sentences when imposing an aggregate sentence under s 53A; the aggregate sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['appeals' 'sentencing' 'aggregate Sentences' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law'] ['appeals' 'sentencing' 'aggregate Sentences' 'manifest Excess']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not specifying which indicative sentences were to be served concurrently or accumulated when imposing an aggregate sentence under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)' 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was not required to specify the degree of concurrency or accumulation in indicative sentences when imposing an aggregate sentence under s 53A; the aggregate sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']