BGH 5 StR 487/16•Drug offense sentencing and slight excess over non-small quantity threshold
BGH 5 StR 487/16Bgh / Criminal Chamber 58 nov 2016Dismissed
Estratto da Omnilex
The Bundesgerichtshof rejected the defendant's revision against a Berlin conviction for a drug offense. It held that the complaint that diminished capacity had been found was not prejudicial, that no examination of suspension of the measure under Section 67b StGB was required given the unconditional prison sentence of two years and three months, and that it was highly doubtful whether only a slight excess over the non-small-quantity threshold under Section 29a BtMG mitigates punishment. In any event, the sentence was so lenient that any error did not affect the judgment. The defendant had to bear the costs of the remedy.
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO; § 29a Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BtMG, § 46 StGB, § 21 StGB, § 67b Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB, § 337 Abs. 1 StPO: Revision against a drug-offense sentence; slight exceedance of the threshold for a non-small quantity as possible mitigating factor. A merely slight exceedance of the threshold under § 29a Abs. 1 No. 2 BtMG does not as such compel mitigation; at least serious doubts exist whether it constitutes a sentencing factor. In any event, a conviction is not based on such consideration where the sentence imposed is exceptionally lenient and therefore any error in the weighing of sentencing factors can be excluded as causal (consid. 3). A finding of diminished capacity is not prejudicial to the defendant. Suspension of a measure under § 67b(1) sentence 2 StGB need not be examined where an unconditional custodial sentence has been imposed.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-11-08
Aktenzeichen: 5 StR 487/16
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:081116B5STR487.16.0
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 29a Abs 1 Nr 2 BtMG, § 46 StGB
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Berlin, 20. Juli 2016, Az: 510 KLs 19/16
Spruchkörper: 5. Strafsenat
Betäubungsmitteldelikte: Strafzumessung bei geringer Überschreitung der Untergrenze zur nicht geringen Menge
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Berlin vom 20. Juli 2016 wird nach § 349 Abs. 2 StPO als unbegründet verworfen.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:
Die Annahme verminderter Schuldfähigkeit (§ 21 StGB) beschwert den Angeklagten nicht (vgl. zu den Voraussetzungen des § 21 StGB bei Betäubungsmittelabhängigkeit etwa BGH, Urteil vom 10. September 2003 – 1 StR 147/03, BGHR StGB § 21 BtM-Auswirkungen 14; st. Rspr.).
Der Prüfung der Aussetzung der Maßregel zur Bewährung hätte es angesichts der (unbedingt) verhängten Freiheitsstrafe von zwei Jahren und drei Monaten nicht bedurft (§ 67b Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB).
Der Senat hält es für äußerst zweifelhaft, dass eine „nur geringe Überschreitung“ der Grenze zur nicht geringen Menge nach § 29a Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BtMG (z. B. die dreifache Menge) einen Strafmilderungsgrund darstellt (so aber BGH, Urteil vom 16. August 2016 – 2 StR 22/16 Rn. 40 mwN). Selbst wenn man dem folgen wollte, kann er hier angesichts der außerordentlich milden Strafe ein Beruhen des Urteils (§ 337 Abs. 1 StPO) auf der strafschärfenden Heranziehung der ca. dreifachen Überschreitung des Grenzwerts ausschließen.
Sander Dölp König
Bellay Feilcke
Estratto da Omnilex
Whether the defendant's revision against the Berlin judgment was well-founded
The revision was unfounded and was rejected under Section 349(2) StPO.
The Senate found no reversible error in the challenged judgment.
Whether a slight excess over the threshold for a non-small quantity under Section 29a(1) No. 2 BtMG should mitigate punishment
The Senate expressed serious doubt that a merely slight excess over the threshold constitutes a mitigating factor; in any event, any error was harmless in light of the lenient sentence imposed.
Even assuming such a mitigating factor exists, the sentence was so lenient that the judgment could not have rested on the contrary consideration.
Whether the defendant was burdened by the finding of diminished capacity under Section 21 StGB
The finding did not prejudice the defendant.
A finding of diminished capacity is not adverse to the defendant in this setting.
Whether suspension of the measure by way of probation under Section 67b(1) sentence 2 StGB had to be examined
No such examination was required because an unconditional prison sentence of two years and three months had been imposed.
The statutory precondition was absent in view of the sentence actually imposed.
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.