Pulitano v R [2010] NSWCCA 45

Pulitano v R [2010] NSWCCA 45

The sentencing judge did, albeit not explicitly, take account of the pre-sentence custody when arriving at the sentences of eighteen months. There is no error in failing to backdate the sentence upon revocation because pre-sentence custody was already considered. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Tony Pulitano; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Pre Sentence Custody, Suspended Sentence, Sentencing Procedure
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Pre Sentence Custody Suspended Sentence Sentencing Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Pulitano

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account pre-sentence custody when imposing or revoking the suspended sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did, albeit not explicitly, take account of the pre-sentence custody when arriving at the sentences of eighteen months. There is no error in failing to backdate the sentence upon revocation because pre-sentence custody was already considered. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • Appeal is dismissed.