Criminal Lawyers in Robbery Defense

Technical Defense by Specialist Robbery

Robbery with Violence or Intimidation: Penalties under Article 242 CP

Article 242 of the Spanish Criminal Code (CP) structures the punishment of violent robbery in four tiers. Knowing them matters because the difference between one tier and another is not a nuance: it decides whether the sentence can stay at or below two years in prison —and therefore whether a suspended sentence can be requested— or whether the range already starts at figures that mean actual imprisonment.

Three practical points. First: the basic offence applies "without prejudice" to the penalty for any acts of physical violence, so injuries caused during the robbery are punished additionally as a separate offence. Second: the weapons aggravation of Article 242.3 operates both when committing the robbery and to protect the escape, and also where the offender attacks those who come to the victim's aid or give chase. Third: the attenuated subtype of Article 242.4 is the main technical battleground in snatchings and minor struggles, because it places the basic-offence penalty between one and two years — a threshold compatible with a suspended sentence.

On the aggravation for premises open to the public, the Supreme Court — in a ruling of 5 March 2026 (appeal 4706/2023), issued in a robbery-with-force case — clarified that it only operates if the offence is actually carried out during opening hours, not during prior preparatory acts; a criterion equally relevant when interpreting Article 242.2 CP.

Arrested or Summonsed for Robbery: The Process Step by Step

Knowing what comes after an arrest or a summons prevents irreversible mistakes. This is the usual itinerary:

1. Police custody. Detention may not last longer than strictly necessary and, in any event, within a maximum of seventy-two hours the detainee must be released or brought before a judge (Article 520 of the Criminal Procedure Act, LECrim). From the first moment, the detainee has the right to remain silent, not to incriminate themselves, to appoint a lawyer of their choice and to be informed in writing, in simple and accessible language, of the facts attributed to them.
2. Statement at the police station. As a rule of prudence, it is unwise to make a statement before preparing the strategy with your lawyer and without knowing the content of the police report: exercising the right to declare only before the judge is a legitimate option and often the safest one.
3. Summons without arrest. In less serious cases, the police may summon the suspect directly before the duty court, informing them of the right to appear assisted by a lawyer (Article 796 LECrim). Many of these cases are processed as fast-track trials: deadlines are compressed and the first appearance can shape the entire proceedings.
4. Duty court and precautionary measures. The judge chooses between provisional release — with or without periodic appearances — and, in violent robberies with a risk of reoffending or flight, pre-trial detention. Organic Law 1/2026 has also strengthened precautionary measures in cases of repeated property crime.
5. Investigation phase. Identification line-ups, fingerprint and DNA reports, CCTV review and valuation of the stolen property are carried out. Appearing in the proceedings early allows the defence to take part in every step and propose exculpatory evidence.
6. Intermediate phase and trial. After the reform introduced by Organic Law 1/2025, guilty-plea agreements have become more flexible: Article 655 LECrim no longer has a penalty ceiling, there is a preliminary hearing (Article 785 LECrim) designed to explore agreements, the lawyer must inform the accused in writing of the consequences of the plea, and the victim is heard. A well-negotiated agreement — minimum penalty, mitigating factors acknowledged, suspension requested in the judgment itself — can be the most reasonable outcome where the prosecution evidence is strong.

If you or a family member has just been arrested or summonsed over a robbery, call +34 91 078 65 74: legal assistance from the very first statement shapes everything that follows.

Will I Go to Prison? Suspended Sentences (Article 80) and Criminal Records

It is the question we are asked most often, and the answer depends above all on the length of the sentence finally imposed. Article 80.1 CP allows the execution of custodial sentences of up to two years to be suspended where it is reasonable to expect that serving the sentence is not necessary to prevent the offender from committing further crimes.

The ordinary conditions of Article 80.2 CP are three:

• First-time offender. Convictions for negligent offences and for minor offences do not count — unless they form part of an aggravated subtype for multi-recidivism of minor offences — nor do criminal records that have been cancelled or should have been.
• Sentence (or sum of sentences) not exceeding two years, excluding any term arising from non-payment of a fine.
• Civil liability satisfied and any confiscation order complied with, or a credible payment commitment in line with the offender's financial capacity.

Applied to robbery: the basic offence of Article 242.1 starts at two years, so a sentence at the legal minimum is still suspendable; the inhabited-house aggravation, with a floor of three years and six months, no longer is. That is why the fight for the attenuated subtype of Article 242.4 — or for downgrading the facts to theft — is not rhetoric: it marks the line between serving and not serving prison time. Even where the first two conditions are not met, Article 80.3 CP exceptionally allows suspension of sentences that individually do not exceed two years, provided the offender is not a habitual criminal, always conditional on effective reparation of the harm and compliance with additional measures.

As for criminal records, Article 136 CP sets the cancellation periods once liability has been extinguished: six months for minor penalties, two years for penalties not exceeding twelve months and those imposed for negligent offences, three years for the remaining less serious penalties under three years, five years for less serious penalties of three years or more, and ten years for serious penalties. Checking which records have been cancelled — or should have been — is a mandatory defensive step: cancelled records count neither for recidivism nor for the new multi-recidivism offences.

Theft and Multi-Recidivism: What Changed in 2026

Organic Law 1/2026 of 8 April (BOE-A-2026-7966), in force since 10 April 2026, has toughened the treatment of repeat theft. Three provisions concentrate the change:

• Article 234.2 CP — multi-recidivist minor theft. Theft not exceeding 400 euros is still punished, as a rule, with a fine of one to three months. But if the offender has at least three enforceable prior convictions for offences of the same nature under the same Title, at least one of them being a minor offence, the penalty of paragraph 1 applies: six to eighteen months in prison. A fourth minor theft is no longer just a matter of a fine.
• Article 235.1.7 CP — aggravated theft for multi-recidivism. Where the three enforceable prior convictions are for less serious or serious offences under the same Title and of the same nature, the theft is punished directly with one to three years in prison.
• Article 235.1.10 CP — theft of mobile phones (new). Theft of mobile phones, and of any other mobile communication or mass-storage device capable of containing personal data, is punished with one to three years in prison; devices on sale, in storage or on display in commercial establishments are excluded. If two or more circumstances of Article 235.1 concur, the penalty is imposed in its upper half (Article 235.2).

The reform also strengthens precautionary measures against repeated property crime and entitles local authorities to bring criminal proceedings in theft cases.

For the defence, the decisive front is the calculation of prior convictions: Article 234.2 itself orders that cancelled records, or records that should have been cancelled, be disregarded, and the aggravation requires the prior convictions to be enforceable (final) and of the same nature. Reviewing the date each conviction became final, the extinction of each penalty and the periods of Article 136 CP often allows wrongly counted convictions to be excluded and returns the case to fine territory. You can read more on our theft defence page.