News

The panel of judges at the Panevėžys Regional Court, having examined a criminal case on appeal, rejected the appeal of the convicted Panevėžys resident M. T. against the first-instance court's judgment, which found him guilty of nineteen thefts, illegal possession of narcotic and psychotropic substances (amphetamine), and illegal acquisition, storage, and use of an electronic payment instrument.

M. T. committed the criminal acts from July to November 2024. During this period, he stole property belonging to others, totalling €2,775.65, from "Norfa," "Maxima," "Lidl," and "IKI" supermarkets, the "Eurovaistinė" pharmacy, and the "Drogas" store located in Panevėžys. M. T. primarily targeted expensive goods—various types of "Gillette" shaving heads, alcoholic beverages, laundry capsules, and cosmetics. Additionally, M. T. was apprehended twice carrying and storing the psychotropic substance—amphetamine. He was also convicted for finding someone else's bank card and using it to pay for goods.

For these acts, M. T. was sentenced to a combined penalty of 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment, which was reduced by one-third after applying the law, resulting in a final sentence of 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment.

The convict filed an appeal requesting a milder sentence, citing his sincere remorse, cooperation during the pre-trial investigation, and efforts to change his behaviour at the place of punishment execution.

However, the Regional Court, after evaluating all the arguments, concluded that there were no grounds to amend or annul the first-instance court's judgment, and the imposed sentences are fair and cannot be considered manifestly too severe.

The panel of judges drew attention to the personality and dangerousness of the convict, who is recognised as a recidivist. M. T. has been convicted many times, mostly for crimes against property and drug offences, has been administratively penalised numerous times for petty thefts and other administrative violations, and does not pay fines.

The Regional Court noted that the first-instance court rightly concluded that M. T. does not draw conclusions from his behaviour, as the crimes are committed systemically. The Regional Court pointed out that, contrary to the convict's claim, his behaviour at the place of punishment execution was not exemplary, and this is evidenced by information received from the Lithuanian Prison Service's Alytus Prison that M. T. escaped from prison while serving his sentence in an open-type correctional facility.

"This fact refutes the arguments for mitigation of the sentence, claiming that M. T. is trying to change his behaviour at the place of punishment execution, be useful to society, and compensate for the damage caused by his criminal acts," the panel of judges noted.

When citing or otherwise distributing this information, please indicate the source of the information.

Contact for the media: