MOHD HAKIMI BIN RAMLEE

MOHD HAKIMI BIN RAMLEE

The conviction and sentence are upheld because the court was satisfied that the plea of guilty complied with the three core safeguards in s.173(b) KTJ (plea made by accused, accused understood nature and consequences, plea unconditional), no miscarriage of justice occurred, s.305 KTJ limits appeals against conviction, and the mandatory sentencing regime under s.39C(1)(b) ADB applied given two prior convictions; after weighing mitigation and aggravation the minimum statutory sentence of five years imprisonment with one stroke and three years' police supervision was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Citation
DE-83D-1133-12/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Hakimi bin Ramlee
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 December 2025
Case Number
DE-83D-1133-12/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Possession (s.15(1)(a) Adb) / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Plea of Guilty, Validity of Conviction, Sentencing, Mandatory Minimum Sentence, Magistrates' Summary Trial Procedure (s.173 Ktj), Limitation on Appeals After Plea (s.305 Ktj)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Criminal Procedure Plea of Guilty Validity of Conviction Sentencing Mandatory Minimum Sentence Magistrates' Summary Trial Procedure (s.173 Ktj) +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Hakimi bin Ramlee

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Possession (s.15(1)(a) Adb) / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's plea of guilty was valid under s.173(b) KTJ and Lee Weng Tuck safeguards
  2. 2 Whether the appeal against conviction is maintainable in view of s.305 KTJ
  3. 3 Whether the mandatory sentencing regime under s.39C(1)(b) ADB applies due to two prior convictions and whether the imposed sentence is excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction and sentence are upheld because the court was satisfied that the plea of guilty complied with the three core safeguards in s.173(b) KTJ (plea made by accused, accused understood nature and consequences, plea unconditional), no miscarriage of justice occurred, s.305 KTJ limits appeals against conviction, and the mandatory sentencing regime under s.39C(1)(b) ADB applied given two prior convictions; after weighing mitigation and aggravation the minimum statutory sentence of five years imprisonment with one stroke and three years' police supervision was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Accused convicted under s.15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 read with s.39C(1)(b) and s.38B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952.