Clement Mariko v Republic [2013] KEHC 431 (KLR)

REPUBLIC  OF  KENYA

IN THE  HIGH   COURT  OF  KENYA  AT   NAKURU

HCRA  NO .103  OF  2012

CLEMENT  MARIKO ……………..……………..APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC ...…………….………….………….RESPONDENT

(Being   an  appeal from  original  conviction  and  sentence  in  Narok C.M  Criminal  Case  No.578  of 2012 byHon C  A  Nyakundi, P.M  dated  2nd  May   2012)

J U D G E M E N T

1. The  appellant  was charged with  stealing  from the person  of  another  contrary  tosection  279 (a)  of the  penal   Code.

2. He pleaded guilty to the offence and was convicted. The  appellant  admitted  to these  facts  but  said  in  mitigation that  the  complainant was  his  wife and his  mother  was  sick.

3. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

4. Under section 348  of the criminal   procedure  code,  a person who pleads guilty and is convicted and  sentenced  on  his  own  plea  of  guilty,  can only appeal on grounds  of  either  legality or  extent  of  sentence. The appellant   appears to be aware of this, as his grounds of  appeal  are  only  on  mitigation

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

5. (i)        The appellant pleaded  guilty to the charge.

The court failed to consider his health status. He  had suffered from epilepsy since  1996  and his condition  is  worsening.

The  appellant  is  and  only  child and the  one  caring  for  his  mother who  sustained  spinal  injuries during the post-election violence in 2008.

(iv)      That the appellant committed the offence under the influence of alcohol and is remorseful.

That the  lower  court  did  not  consider  a  non-custodial  sentence  over  the   three  (3)  years  of  imprisonment.

The conviction and sentence was unconstitutional as the offence committed   was aimed at reconciling   the family.

That the appellant is a first offender.

ISSUE FOR  DETERMINATION

6(i) Sentence

ANALYSIS

7. In  his  petition  for  appeal,  all  that   is  contained  therein  is  mitigation  as to why   the  court  should  reconsider  the  sentence and  be  lenient to  him. Mr  Marete, counsel who  appeared  for the  state did  not   oppose the  appeal  on sentence. The  appellant had  been convicted  of  stealing  from  his wife  and  he was  of the opinion  that the  sentence was too harsh even  if the maximum sentence  under  section 279(a)  of the  penal  code  was  14  years imprisonment. He urged the court to consider a custodial sentence in place of the three years imprisonment.

FINDINGS

8. The  trial  Magistrate reached  a correct finding  and  sentenced the  appellant  within the  stipulated  period  under the penal code of 14 years maximum  imprisonment period.

I  have however taken  into consideration that the  Appellant  has  served a  period  of  1  year  6  months  upto October  2013 and  is  left with  about  one   and a half   years  if  he  is  granted  remission.

The appellant stole from his wife. They have children together and his mother is unwell. The  presence   of the  appellant  at  home  will  be  good  for  his  children and  his  ailing mother and hopefully he will  be  able to  reconcile   with   his  wife. This court will exercise it’s discretion and sentence the appellant to the term already served.

CONCLUSION

The  appeal  against   sentence  is  allowed to  that  extent  and  the appellant  is released  from  prison  forthwith unless otherwise  lawfully  held.

Dated signed and delivered this 8th day of   November 2013.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr  Marete  for  the state

Appellants:  Clement  Mariko

Emmanuel  Maelo: Court  Clerk.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE