New Killer Brothers 25 Years Is Reduced Latest. There is a lot of backstory being updated below. Click back, a lot of info to post. Brothers Hasantley Fulgencio Martina, and Hensley Hilarion Martina.

ABOVE COURT TRANSCRIPTS ORIGINAL COUT CASE. BELOW APPEALS. AT THE BOTTOM BACKSTORY LINKS ARTICLES, VIDEOS, PHOTOS ETC

Caribbean case. Co-perpetrating murder on Sint Maarten (art. 2: 262 in conjunction with 1: 123 SrStM) and co-perpetrating possession of firearms and ammunition (art. 3.1 Firearms Ordinance in conjunction with 1: 1: 123 SrStM). Resources about 1. deviation from use of camera images and observations, 2. reliability of anonymous witness and supporting evidence, 3. use for proof of PV with statement of unknown caller. HR: art. 81.1 RO. Consistency with the 19 /05346 .

SUPREME COURT OF THE NETHERLANDS

CRIMINAL CHAMBER

Number 19 /05691 A

Date May 11, 2021

JUDGMENT

on the appeal in cassation against a judgment of the Common Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, dated November 14, 2019, number H-16/ 19 , in the criminal case

against

Hasantley Fulgencio Martina, age 30

born in [place of birth] on [date of birth] 1991,

hereafter: the suspect.

1 Procedure in cassation
The appeal has been lodged by the accused. On his behalf, SD Groen, a lawyer in Utrecht, has proposed means of cassation in writing. The scripture is attached to this judgment and is part of it.

Advocate General DJMW Paridaens has applied for the contested decision to be set aside, but only with regard to the sentence imposed, to reduce the sentence imposed, and to dismiss the appeal for the rest.

N. van Schaik, attorney in Utrecht, responded in writing on behalf of the suspect.

2 Assessment of the grounds of cassation
The Supreme Court has assessed the complaints about the court’s decision. The result of this is that these complaints cannot lead to the annulment of that decision. The Supreme Court is not required to state reasons why it reached this judgment. When assessing these complaints, it is not necessary to answer questions that are important for the unity or development of the law (see Article 81 paragraph 1 of the Judicial Organization Act).

3 Ex officio assessment of the court’s decision
The suspect is in police custody. The Supreme Court will rule after more than sixteen months have passed since the cassation appeal was lodged. This means that the reasonable term as referred to in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been exceeded. This should lead to a reduction of the imposed prison sentence of 25 years.

4 Decision
The high Council:

• set aside the decision of the court, but only with regard to the length of the prison sentence imposed;
• reduces it to the extent that it is 24 years and 10 months;
• otherwise dismisses the appeal.

This judgment was delivered by Vice President J. de Hullu as Chairman, and Counsel ESGNAI van de Griend and JCAM Claassens, in the presence of the Acting Registrar E. Schnetz, and delivered in open court on 11 May 2021 .

Caribbean case. Co-perpetrating murder on Sint Maarten (art. 2: 262 in conjunction with 1: 123 SrStM) and co-perpetrating possession of firearms and ammunition (art. 3.1 Firearms Ordinance in conjunction with 1: 1: 123 SrStM). Resources about 1. deviation from use of camera images and observations, 2. reliability of anonymous witness and evidence of support, 3. use for proof of PV with statement of unknown caller and 4. co-perpetration. HR: art. 81.1 RO. Consistency with the

SUPREME COURT OF THE NETHERLANDS

CRIMINAL CHAMBER

Date May 11, 2021

JUDGMENT

on the appeal in cassation against a judgment of the Common Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, dated November 14, 2019, number H 15/19 , in the criminal case

against

Hensley Hilarion Martina

born in [place of birth] on [date of birth] 1994,

hereafter: the suspect.

1 Procedure in cassation
The appeal has been lodged by the accused. On his behalf, N. van Schaik, attorney in Utrecht, proposed appeals for cassation. The scripture is attached to this judgment and is part of it.

Advocate General DJMW Paridaens has applied for the contested decision to be set aside, but only with regard to the sentence imposed, to reduce the sentence imposed, and to dismiss the appeal for the rest.

The defense counsel for the suspect has responded in writing.

2Assessment of the grounds of cassation
The Supreme Court has assessed the complaints about the court’s decision. The result of this is that these complaints cannot lead to the annulment of that decision. The Supreme Court is not required to state reasons why it reached this judgment. When assessing these complaints, it is not necessary to answer questions that are important for the unity or development of the law (see Article 81 paragraph 1 of the Judicial Organization Act).
Formal relationships

Caribbean case. Co-perpetrating murder on Sint Maarten (art. 2: 262 in conjunction with 1: 123 SrStM) and co-perpetrating possession of firearms and ammunition (art. 3.1 Firearms Ordinance in conjunction with 1: 1: 123 SrStM). Resources about 1. deviation from use of camera images and observations, 2. reliability of anonymous witness and evidence of support, 3. use for proof of PV with statement of unknown caller and 4. co-perpetration. HR: art. 81.1 RO. Consistency with the

SUPREME COURT OF THE NETHERLANDS

CRIMINAL CHAMBER

Number 19 /05346 A

Date May 11, 2021

JUDGMENT

on the appeal in cassation against a judgment of the Common Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, dated November 14, 2019, number H 15/19 , in the criminal case

against

[suspect],

born in [place of birth] on [date of birth] 1994,

hereafter: the suspect.

1 Procedure in cassation
The appeal has been lodged by the accused. On his behalf, N. van Schaik, attorney in Utrecht, proposed appeals for cassation. The scripture is attached to this judgment and is part of it.

Advocate General DJMW Paridaens has applied for the contested decision to be set aside, but only with regard to the sentence imposed, to reduce the sentence imposed, and to dismiss the appeal for the rest.

The defense counsel for the suspect has responded in writing.

2 Assessment of the grounds of cassation
The Supreme Court has assessed the complaints about the court’s decision. The result of this is that these complaints cannot lead to the annulment of that decision. The Supreme Court is not required to state reasons why it reached this judgment. When assessing these complaints, it is not necessary to answer questions that are important for the unity or development of the law (see Article 81 paragraph 1 of the Judicial Organization Act).

3 Ex officio assessment of the court’s decision
The suspect is in police custody. The Supreme Court will rule after more than sixteen months have passed since the cassation appeal was lodged. This means that the reasonable term as referred to in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been exceeded. This should lead to a reduction of the prison sentence imposed by 22 years.

4 Decision
The high Council:

• set aside the decision of the court, but only with regard to the length of the prison sentence imposed;
• reduces it in the sense that it is 21 years and 10 months;
• otherwise dismisses the appeal.

This judgment was delivered by Vice President J. de Hullu as Chairman, and Counsel ESGNAI van de Griend and JCAM Claassens, in the presence of the Acting Registrar E. Schnetz, and delivered in open court on 11 May 2021

https://sxmgovernment.com/2019/11/15/brothers-sentences-upheld-frankie-brunache-murder/

Sint Maarten (Justice) Murder of Francis Brunache: the Martina brothers sentenced to 22 and 25 years in prison respectively!
Post on: December 4, 2019

The Sint Maarten Court of Appeal confirmed last week the sentencing of brothers Hasantley Fulgencio Martina, 28, and Hensley Hilarion Martina, 24, who had been convicted of the murder of Francis Brunache at Hope Estate on January 24, 2017 At first instance, the court had sentenced the two individuals to 25 years in prison.

Francis Brunache had been shot in his car by several bullets fired by a semi-automatic weapon, in what appears to be a drug-related case. At the end of last week, the judges of the Court of Appeal confirmed the 25-year sentence pronounced against Hashantley. At the time of the murder, he was on probation for possession of drugs and theft of a car. In this case, he had been sentenced, on the day of the murder of Francis Brunache, to 80 hours of community service and to one year suspended imprisonment. A penalty in addition to 25 years for murder. Her brother Hensley’s sentence was reduced to 22 years. The Court found that it was proven that the two suspects planned and carried out the liquidation of Francis Brunache.

Another individual, Kathron “Cuchi” Fortune from Grenada, was suspected of having participated in this shooting. But the attorney general said last March that there was not enough evidence and did not see fit to prosecute Fortune in the context of this case. But Fortune had been sentenced to life in prison last June as part of another murder case. He had killed two men of Dominican origin in a hotel room at the Simps

PROSECUTOR CALLS FOR 24 AND 22 YEARS IN BRUNACHE MURDER CASE

November 22, 2018

The Prosecutor’s Office has requested a 24-year prison sentence for suspect H.F.M. (27) and 22 years for his brother H.H.M. (24) for the alleged murder of Franky Brunache at Pica Shell Road in Hope Estate on January 24, 2017. The Court will give its decision in this case December 12.

  “Murder is one of the most serious crimes, if not the most serious crime in the penal code. This is a murder that has all the characteristics of a liquidation. Franky Brunache was liquidated 20 metres from his home, 20 minutes before his birthday. This is clearly a brutal and deceitful act of violence,” the Prosecutor’s Office said.

  According to the Prosecutor, the two suspects presumably planned and carried out the Brunache murder, together with a third suspect, Kathron “Cuchi” Fortune, who has not been formally charged with this crime yet.

  In a wiretapped telephone conversation, Fortune allegedly told the two suspects that the money would be “split in our three. … I don’t have nobody else between, understand, so 25-grand divided. Let me go get the chopper.”

  According to the Prosecutor, this conversation was an indication that three persons would have to divide the amount of 25,000 among them.

  A “chopper,”  the Prosecutor said, does not only mean a helicopter or a motorcycle, but also an automatic machinegun, according to urbandictionary.com.

  In the Prosecutor’s opinion, H.H.M. drove the getaway car, a “silky brown” Hyundai Accent, with H.F.M. and Fortune being the shooters.

  The Prosecutor’s Office presented witness statements, information obtained from wiretapped telephones and the results of forensic investigations to prove its case.

  The scene of the crime was meticulously searched for forensic evidence. Some 39 shells were found, presumably fired by an AK-47 machine gun and a semi-automatic pistol. Brunache was shot at 20 times and his car was hit by dozens of bullets.

  He was killed on the spot in what the Prosecutor described as a “cold-blooded reckoning” in a residential area where bystanders could have easily become victims. The murder was possible drug-related.

  According to the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) this investigation may be linked to the “Palmtree” and “Tomato” investigations, in which the same firearm was used.

  Palmtree concerns the killing of Tabeha York (31) and his girlfriend Sabrena Martes (23) on January 6, 2017, for which H.F.M. and H.H.M. were arrested and questioned. This investigation is still ongoing.

  The Tomato case is about the shooting of Adrian Thewet, also known as “Nino Brown,” who was killed by gunshots at the car wash on Arch Road on March 14, 2017. No one has been arrested in this ongoing investigation yet, the Prosecutor stated.

  The Prosecutor presented a wiretapped phone conversation between Brunache’s girlfriend and his sister in which it was stated that Thewet allegedly had told Brunache’s sister that it was “the 25-year-old that killed the man, and Cuchi.”

  Thewet also told her that he was very shocked by Brunache’s death and that he was afraid of being murdered as well. According to the Prosecutor, “the 25-year-old” could be nobody else but H.F.M. who was 25 when Brunache was killed.

  Other forensic evidence against the M. brothers include gunpowder residue that was found in the getaway car and possible traces of blood and glass particles found in and on a shoe belonging to H.F.M. The glass comes from the broken car windows, the Prosecutor said.

  The Prosecutor requested a higher prison sentence for suspect H.F.M., noting that he has been convicted for three different crimes. Also, the murder was committed while he was on probation. For this reason, the Prosecutor also requested the execution of a one-year conditional prison sentence.

  The brothers denied their involvement in the gangland-style killing. Their lawyer Marije Vaders primarily built her clients’ defence on the mistake made by police investigator J.V.G.

  In using wiretapped telephone conversations as evidence in this case the Prosecutor’s Office had established that H.F.M. would have been in the car that was used in the killing. However, early October it emerged that a police detective had made a mistake in the voice recognition. The voice which was recorded minutes before the murder did not belong to H.F.M., who speaks with a Curaçaolenean accent, but to Fortune, who hails from Grenada.

  The detective in question had written 21 reports in the investigation, but these were unquestionably correct, the Prosecutor asserted. According to the Prosecutor, the detective had made an “honest mistake,” but only in one of the reports.

  The lawyer disagreed and said the detective had done a sloppy job, which had mistakenly led the Prosecutor to believe that her clients had been involved. Therefore, she pleaded with the Court to declare the Prosecutor’s case against her clients inadmissible, as the defaulting police officer had “contaminated” the entire investigation.

  Vaders also said there was no direct evidence linking her clients to the alleged crimes, which include illegal firearm possession, and said the Prosecutor’s case was built on “assumptions.”

Due to the mistake made, the lawyer also pleaded for the continued suspension of H.F.M.’s pretrial detention, as ordered by the Court on October 3, but this time the judge denied the request due to the severity of this case. Therefore, both defendants were taking back to the Pointe Blanche prison after the hearing.

JAN 25 2017

BREAKING NEWS: Franky Brunache shot in cold blood on Tuesday night

HOPE ESTATE, Sint Maarten — Franklin “Franky” Brunache was shot in cold blood late Tuesday evening by unknown assailant (s) in front of his home located in Hope Estate.

Police arrived on the scene after 11:00pm when they found the young man on the driveway near the driver’s side in a black SUV.

Police Chief Carl John and a Prosecutor were on scene late on Tuesday as investigators were speaking to any possible witnesses trying to piece together what took place. Forensic officers also bagged and tagged any possible evidence found at the man’s home.

As the investigation continues, it is still too early to speculate on the reason for the execution style shooting. Police however can suspect that the multiple gunshot holes found on the vehicle caused the victim’s immediate death.

Police spokesman Chief Inspector Ricardo Henson is calling on any person in the community that might have information about the brutal murder to call 911.

New Vid Bad Crash The Driver Is Alive Latest

No Limit Soldiers Gang In Court Brown & Gumbs Hits Retaliation For Murder Of Latoya Flanders