\u00a0 \u00a0 Proceso No 23097 \u00a0<\/p>\n
CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA \u00a0<\/p>\n
SALA DE C ASACION PENAL \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Aprobado \u00a0Acta \u00a0No. \u00a0158 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Magistrado Ponente: \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Dr. MAURO SOLARTE PORTILLA \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Bogot\u00e1, \u00a0D. C., veintinueve de agosto de dos \u00a0mil siete. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Se \u00a0pronuncia la Corte sobre el desistimiento \u00a0del \u00a0 recurso \u00a0 de \u00a0 casaci\u00f3n \u00a0 manifestado \u00a0 por \u00a0 el \u00a0procesado \u00a0Jhonny \u00a0Alex\u00e1nder \u00a0Restrepo \u00a0G\u00f3mez.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Antecedentes: \u00a0<\/p>\n
1. El 17 de enero de 2005 la Corte admiti\u00f3 la \u00a0demanda \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 casaci\u00f3n \u00a0 presentada \u00a0 por \u00a0 el \u00a0 defensor \u00a0 de \u00a0 Jhonny \u00a0Alex\u00e1nder \u00a0Restrepo \u00a0G\u00f3mez contra \u00a0la \u00a0sentencia \u00a0dictada \u00a0por \u00a0el Tribunal Superior de Medell\u00edn el 30 de julio de \u00a02004, por el delito de homicidio. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. \u00a0El \u00a023 \u00a0de \u00a0julio \u00a0del \u00a0a\u00f1o \u00a0en curso el \u00a0procesado \u00a0comunic\u00f3 a la Corte su decisi\u00f3n de desistir del recurso, con el fin \u00a0de \u00a0agilizar \u00a0el \u00a0tr\u00e1mite \u00a0para la obtenci\u00f3n de los beneficios administrativos \u00a0consagrados en la ley 65 de 1995.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. \u00a0 \u00a0Puesta \u00a0 esta \u00a0 manifestaci\u00f3n \u00a0 en \u00a0consideraci\u00f3n \u00a0del \u00a0defensor \u00a0del \u00a0procesado \u00a0para \u00a0su \u00a0ratificaci\u00f3n, \u00a0dijo no \u00a0coadyuvarla. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
SE \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0CONSIDERA: \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
El art\u00edculo 127 de la ley 600 de 2000, en su \u00a0inciso \u00a0primero, \u00a0establece que cuando la defensa se ejerza simult\u00e1neamente por \u00a0el \u00a0sindicado \u00a0y \u00a0el \u00a0defensor, \u00a0prevalecer\u00e1n \u00a0las \u00a0peticiones de este \u00faltimo. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
En \u00a0el caso analizado se est\u00e1 frente\u00a0 a \u00a0un \u00a0conflicto de posturas defensivas, pues mientras el procesado propugna por el \u00a0desistimiento \u00a0del \u00a0recurso \u00a0de \u00a0casaci\u00f3n, \u00a0su \u00a0defensor \u00a0es \u00a0del \u00a0criterio que \u00a0contin\u00fae su tr\u00e1mite. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Como \u00a0frente \u00a0a \u00a0controversias \u00a0de este tipo, \u00a0prevalece \u00a0la \u00a0postura \u00a0de \u00a0la \u00a0defensa \u00a0t\u00e9cnica, \u00a0la Corte se atendr\u00e1 a ella. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
En m\u00e9rito de lo expuesto, LA CORTE SUPREMA DE \u00a0JUSTICIA, SALA DE CASACI\u00d3N PENAL, \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
RESUELVE: \u00a0<\/p>\n
No \u00a0 aceptar \u00a0 el \u00a0desistimiento \u00a0del \u00a0recurso de casaci\u00f3n expresado por el procesado Jhonny \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Alex\u00e1nder \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Restrepo \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0G\u00f3mez.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Contra \u00a0 esta \u00a0decisi\u00f3n procede el recurso de reposici\u00f3n.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
NOTIFIQUESE Y CUMPLASE. \u00a0<\/p>\n
ALFREDO GOMEZ QUINTERO \u00a0<\/p>\n
SIGIFREDO \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ESPINOSA \u00a0PEREZ\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0MARIA \u00a0 \u00a0DEL \u00a0 R. \u00a0GONZALEZ DE L. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
AUGUSTO \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0J. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0IBA\u00d1EZ \u00a0GUZMAN\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0JORGE \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L. \u00a0 \u00a0 QUINTERO \u00a0MILANES \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
YESID \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0RAMIREZ \u00a0BASTIDAS\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0JULIO E. SOCHA SALAMANCA \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Comisi\u00f3n de servicio \u00a0<\/p>\n
MAURO \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0SOLARTE \u00a0PORTILLA\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0JAVIER \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ZAPATA \u00a0ORTIZ \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Teresa Ruiz N\u00fa\u00f1ez \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0SECRETARIA \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00a0 \u00a0 Proceso No 23097 \u00a0 CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA \u00a0 SALA DE C ASACION PENAL \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Aprobado \u00a0Acta \u00a0No. \u00a0158 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12495\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}