[2017] KEHC 386 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was convicted on his own unequivocal guilty plea, which was properly recorded in a language he understood. The record showed that the appellant was given an opportunity to mitigate but did not do so. The claim that his mitigation was not considered was therefore unfounded. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 386 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Paul Lasurmati; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 33 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe, A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Stealing Offences, Sentencing Principles, Guilty Plea, Mitigation, Habitual Offender, Penal Code Section 275
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Lasurmati
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive and harsh.
- 2 Whether the trial court considered the appellant's mitigation before sentencing.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the sentence to run consecutively.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was convicted on his own unequivocal guilty plea, which was properly recorded in a language he understood. The record showed that the appellant was given an opportunity to mitigate but did not do so. The claim that his mitigation was not considered was therefore unfounded. The sentence of three years imprisonment was for a single count, and there was no order for consecutive sentences. The appellant's status as a petty offender with other pending matters was noted, but the sentence was deemed sufficient for rehabilitation. The appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.33 OF 2017
PAUL LASURMATI ..................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ............................................................RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.456 of 2016 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Isiolo)
JUDGEMENT
The Appellant was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that the appellant on the 3rd August 2016 at about 6. 00pm at Archers Post trading centre in Samburu County within Rift valley region stole one meko gas valued at Ksh.8,000/= the property of Erick Mbaabu.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentence to serve three years imprisonment. In his grounds of appeal the appellant states that the sentence is excessive and harsh, that his mitigation was not considered and that the trial court erred by ordering that the sentence is to run consecutively. The appellant submitted that his mitigation was comprehensive and shows that he is responsible to other people. The sentence will affect his little children and elderly parents who depend on him. Mr. Odhiambo, prosecution counsel opposed the appeal. Counsel submitted that the appellant pleaded guilty to both the charge and the facts. The appellant is a habitual offender who had three other matters before court. The sentence is reasonable.
The record of the trial court show that the appellant was arrested on the 18th of August 2016 and arraigned in court on the 22nd of August 2016. The charge was read over to the appellant in Kiswahili language and the appellant pleaded guilty. The facts were also read to the appellant and he also pleaded guilty. The conviction is based on the appellant’s own guilty plea. It is therefore proper. The appellant did not mitigate after the conviction despite having been given the opportunity to do so. The contention that his mitigation was not considered is not true. The appellant was only charged with one count and was sentenced to serve three years imprisonment. There is nothing like the sentence running consecutively. It appears that the appellant is a petty offender. He had two other criminal matters namely Cr. No. 457/16 and 458/16. I do find that the three years imprisonment is sufficient period for the appellant to retrace his steps and cool off his attitude in prison.
In the end I do find that the appeal lacks merit and is hereby disallowed.
DATED AND SIGNED AT MARSABIT THIS …….DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
SAID CHITEMBWE
JUDGE
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
A. MABEYA
JUDGE