Objections to a Sentence Calculation Sheet
General information about sentence calculation sheets, release dates and objections in the Turkish enforcement system.
Introduction
Once a conviction becomes final, a sentence calculation sheet (müddetname) is prepared to record how the sentence will be served. It includes the start and end dates, the conditional release date and other information relevant to enforcement.
Errors may occur in this document. The convicted person or their lawyer may challenge the calculation.
What is a sentence calculation sheet?
- A sentence calculation sheet records how long a convicted person is to remain in prison under the final judgment.
- It is prepared by the public prosecutor’s office responsible for sentence enforcement.
- When calculating, the following is taken into account:
- Type of conviction (imprisonment, judicial fine, etc.)
- Length or amount of the sentence
- Credit for time spent in pre-trial detention
- Conditional release period (e.g. 2/3, 1/2)
- Applicable sentence-enforcement regime
What information does the sheet contain?
- The start and end dates of the sentence
- Conditional release date
- Date for release under supervised enforcement (denetimli serbestlik)
- Periods credited against the sentence, including pre-trial detention and earlier periods served
Example of a sentence calculation sheet
What does an objection concern?
If the sheet is incorrect, the convicted person or their lawyer may object to it.
- Who Can Apply?
- Convict
- Counsel (lawyer)
- Public prosecutor
- Application Authority:
- The objection is made to the enforcement judge in the judicial district of the chief public prosecutor’s office that issued the sheet. For example, a sheet issued by the Antalya Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office is challenged before the Antalya Enforcement Judgeship.
What errors can be challenged?
Objections generally concern calculation errors. Common grounds include:
- Failure to deduct time spent in pre-trial detention
- Implementing the wrong execution regime (for example, applying 2/3 instead of 1/2)
- Error in total sentence for multiple convictions
- Ignoring law changes
- Incorrect calculation of the sentence period
How is an objection made?
- The convicted person or their lawyer applies to the enforcement judge if they identify an error in the sheet.
- The objection petition is submitted to the sentence-enforcement unit of the chief public prosecutor’s office.
- The enforcement judge examines the objection and gives a decision.
- The enforcement judge’s decision may be challenged before the High Criminal Court.
Time limits for challenging a sentence calculation
Example objection petition
TO THE … ENFORCEMENT JUDGESHIP
APPLICANT
(CONVICT):
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
ADDRESS:
SUBJECT: Objection to the sentence calculation sheet.
EXPLANATIONS:
1-) Our client was sentenced to … years and … months of imprisonment for the offence of … by the … High Criminal Court, under case no. 2025/…… E. and decision no. 2025/…… K. The sentence calculation sheet dated ………….., issued by the … Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, records the conditional release date as …/…/… and the date of release on completion of the full sentence as …/…/….
2-) Both dates are incorrect. Given the offence and the date on which it was committed, the applicable conditional release fraction should be 1/2, not 2/3. This error would require our client to serve a longer period than the law permits.
3-) For these reasons, we request that the objection be accepted and the necessary steps taken to correct the calculation sheet identified above. The sheet concerns a period of … months and … days and restricts our client’s liberty as explained.
LEGAL REASONS: 5237 S. K. m. 7; 5275 S. K. m. 107, 108.
RELIEF REQUESTED: For the reasons set out above, we respectfully request that the objection be accepted, that the conditional release date recorded by the public prosecutor’s office be changed to …./…/…., and that the date of release on completion of the full sentence be changed to …/…/…. …/…/…
Counsel for the convicted person
Lawyer
Case law on sentence calculation objections
…The public prosecutor’s office prepared a sentence calculation sheet dated 29.03.2023, no. 2023/7-2960, for a combined prison sentence of 36 years imposed for three separate offences of aggravated robbery. The sheet applied a reduction of 1/3 under Article 107(2) of Law No. 5275 and was notified to the convicted person on 11.04.2023. In a petition submitted on 07.08.2023, counsel objected that the proceedings concerning the organisation offence had been discontinued because of limitation, and that the final sentences for robbery should therefore be served with a reduction of 1/2 rather than 1/3. Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Enforcement Judgeship Law No. 4675, the enforcement judge rejected the objection on procedural grounds without examining its merits, because it had not been submitted within 15 days of notification on 11.04.2023.
Under Article 98(1)(b) of Law No. 5275, a decision may be requested from the enforcement judge at any time where there is uncertainty over the calculation of the sentence to be served or a dispute about whether it can be enforced in whole or in part. The convicted person may therefore challenge the calculation sheet issued by the public prosecutor’s office and notified to them at any time; the legislation imposes no time limit on that objection. Counsel’s objection should have been examined on its merits. The review authority’s decision to uphold the procedural rejection, rather than accept the objection against it, was contrary to law. The request for cassation in the interest of law was accordingly found justified.
Court of Cassation, First Criminal Chamber, 25.06.2021, case no. 2020/154 E., decision no. 2021/11201 K.
Given the dates of the offences, the convicted person was serving the sentence under Law No. 647 on the basis of 1/2 and 6 days per month. The escape from the penal institution made the relevant provision of that law applicable. However, the temporary provision added to Law No. 5275 by Decree-Law No. 671 also had to be considered. For each final sentence, the relevant provisions of Laws No. 647 and No. 5275 had to be applied in a concrete comparison to identify the more favourable law for conditional release. A new calculation sheet was required on that basis, and the objection should have been accepted.
Instead, the decision had required a sheet to be prepared directly under Law No. 647, without considering the escape or comparing the applicable provisions. The rejection of the objection against that decision was contrary to procedure and law. The grounds for cassation set out by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation were therefore found justified, and the decision was quashed in the interest of law.
.