Sentence Merger
Request and defense of sentence merger (Art. 193.2 RP): single sentence calculation to optimize access to furloughs, third degree and conditional release.
Last updated:
Merger vs Accumulation
Frequently confused two distinct figures affecting those serving multiple sentences. Accumulation (Art. 988 LECrim) is judicial procedure applying maximum serving limits of Art. 76 CP. Reduces total time to serve. Merger (Art. 193.2 RP) is administrative decision considering all sentences as one for benefit period computation. Accelerates access to these benefits. Both figures can coexist.
Framework
Art. 193.2 RP: "When convict suffers two or more custodial sentences, their sum will be considered one sentence for conditional release application." TS and CC doctrine has extended single computation also to furloughs and third degree.
Single Computation
Practical effect is decisive. An inmate with three 4-year sentences without merger would have to serve 1/4 of each (1 year) to request furloughs, then enter each subsequent quarter. With merger, computation is on total: served 1/4 of 12 years (3 abstract years), accesses furloughs for entire sentence.
Request Procedure
Inmate request or Technical Team proposal; documentary verification of all causes and pending sentences; Technical Team report; Board proposal; Central Authority resolution; notification with appeal period.
Appeals and Special Cases
Denial is appealable through reform before Central Authority and appeal to PSJ within 5 days. Special cases include sentences in different countries (merger possible if transfer under Strasbourg Convention).
Penalty Chart
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Benefits acceleration | Anticipated access to furloughs, third degree and conditional release. |
| Doesn't reduce sentence | Merger doesn't reduce total time to serve, only accelerates intermediate milestones. |
| Compatible with accumulation | Merger operates after accumulation, multiplying favorable effect when both apply. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Our Defense Strategy
Initial cause triage
Complete cause and sentence audit to identify mergeable universe.
Combined request with accumulation
When both apply, joint approach to maximize effect.
Old redemption documentation
For 1973 Criminal Code sentences, documentary evidence of redemptions for specific computation.
Update after new finalities
Re-request each time additional cause becomes final.
Criminal Procedure in Spain: Fast Trials, Extraditions & Prison Law — Defence Guide
Beyond substantive criminal offences, Spanish law contains a complex procedural framework that directly affects defence strategy. Fast-track trials (juicios rápidos), extradition procedures (European Arrest Warrants and bilateral treaties), penitentiary law (classification grades, parole, sentence review) and juvenile justice (LO 5/2000) each demand specialised knowledge. Understanding procedural rights and deadlines is often decisive for the outcome of a case.
Key Procedural Frameworks
| Framework | Legal Basis | Scope | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fast-track trials | Arts. 795-803 LECrim | Offences punishable by up to 5 years prison | Trial within 15 days of arrest |
| European Arrest Warrant | LO 23/2014 | Cross-EU extradition | 60-day maximum execution |
| Prison classification | LO 1/1979 (LOGP) | Classification into grades 1, 2 or 3 | Open regime (grade 3) = semi-liberty |
| Conditional release | Arts. 90-93 CP | Release from prison on licence | ¾ of sentence served + good conduct |
| Juvenile justice | LO 5/2000 | Offenders aged 14-17 | Educative measures, not punishment |
| Criminal record expungement | Art. 136 CP | Deletion of criminal record | Timeframe varies by offence severity |
Key Defence Strategies
Fast-Trial Conformity Advantage
In fast-track proceedings, agreeing to a plea (conformidad) with the prosecution can yield a sentence reduction of up to one-third. This can make the difference between prison and a suspended sentence.
EAW Refusal Grounds
European Arrest Warrants may be refused on grounds of: ne bis in idem (double jeopardy), time-barred offence, minor's age, or if the person will serve the sentence in Spain. Each ground requires specific procedural challenges.
Prison Grade Review
Inmates may contest their classification grade before the Supervisory Judge (Juez de Vigilancia Penitenciaria). Progression to grade 3 (semi-liberty) requires demonstrating good conduct, personal development and reduced recidivism risk.
Juvenile Diversion
For juvenile offenders, the defence can request diversion (sobreseimiento) if the minor completes a mediation or reparation programme. This avoids formal proceedings and prevents a juvenile record entirely.
Key Case Law
The Court confirmed that defendants who reach a plea agreement in fast-track proceedings have an absolute right to the one-third sentence reduction. The judge cannot refuse the agreed sentence if it falls within the statutory range.
The CJEU established that execution of a European Arrest Warrant may be suspended if there is a real risk of inhumane treatment in the issuing state. The executing authority must request specific assurances before surrender.
The Constitutional Court holds that prison classification decisions must be reasoned and subject to periodic review, in line with the fundamental rights of sentenced persons under Art. 25.2 CE.
Why Choose Us?
Need a criminal defense lawyer for this type of offense? Here's how we work:
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.