Calculate criminal sentences in three phases under CP arts. 59, 68, and 69.
Brazil's Supreme Court (STF) and Superior Court of Justice (STJ) endorse the three-phase Hungria method (CP art. 68): Phase 1, base sentence within the statutory range, considering 8 judicial circumstances (art. 59: culpability, prior record, social conduct, personality, motives, circumstances, consequences, victim behavior). Phase 2, aggravating/mitigating factors under arts. 61-66 (STJ Precedent 231 bars mitigation below the statutory minimum). Phase 3, special increase/reduction factors, which, unlike the earlier phases, may push the sentence outside the statutory minimum and maximum; when special-part factors concur, only the highest percentage applies (art. 68, sole paragraph). Once a single crime's sentence is set, crime concurrence can change the outcome: material concurrence (art. 69) adds the sentences together; formal (proper) concurrence (art. 70) and continuing crime (art. 71) increase the most severe sentence by a fraction. Finally: initial regime (art. 33) and eligibility for alternative sanctions, which require, among other conditions, that the crime was not committed with violence or a serious threat to a person (art. 44, I), or for a suspended sentence (art. 77), which is subsidiary to alternative sanctions.
Criminal sentencing follows the three-phase method endorsed by the STF and STJ: first, the base sentence is set considering the judicial circumstances of art. 59 (phase 1); then aggravating and mitigating factors under arts. 61-66 apply (phase 2); finally, special increase and reduction factors, found either in the general or the special part of the Code, apply (phase 3). Each phase builds on the previous phase's result, and only phase 3 may push the sentence outside the statutory minimum and maximum.
There is no fixed statutory fraction for unfavorable judicial circumstances in phase 1: courts split between 1/8 of the range between minimum and maximum per factor (more favorable to the defendant) and 1/6 of the statutory minimum. In phase 2, STJ Precedent 231 bars any mitigating factor from reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum, even if mitigating factors outweigh aggravating ones.
Once a single crime's sentence is set by the three-phase method, crime concurrence can change the final outcome. In material concurrence (art. 69), each crime's sentence is added in full. In formal (proper) concurrence (art. 70, 1st part), when a single act or omission produces two or more crimes without independent intent, the most severe sentence is increased by 1/6 to 1/2. In a continuing crime (art. 71), when crimes of the same kind follow one another under similar conditions of time, place, and method, the increase also ranges from 1/6 to 2/3.
Choosing among these categories depends on the facts of the case, not just the number of crimes: in general, formal concurrence and continuing crime are more favorable to the defendant than material concurrence, because they increase a single sentence rather than adding all sentences together. This calculator only applies the fraction or sum the user indicates; the legal classification of the facts requires an attorney's analysis.
Paste the code into your HTML and the tool shows up on your page, without J-Kit's navigation and ads. It still runs in the browser of whoever visits your site.
<iframe
src="https://jkit.tools/embed/en-US/criminal-sentencing-calculator"
width="100%"
height="600"
style="border:0"
loading="lazy"
title="Criminal Sentencing Calculator (Brazil)"
></iframe>These references help contextualize formulas, standards, APIs and limitations used on this page. They do not replace professional validation when a result has legal, financial, medical or operational impact.
A method created by Nelson Hungria and endorsed by the STF: Phase 1 sets the base sentence within the statutory range; Phase 2 applies aggravating/mitigating factors; Phase 3 applies special increase/reduction factors (CP art. 68).
Support tool only. Sentencing is the exclusive prerogative of the competent judge (CF art. 5, LIII). Does not replace professional legal analysis.
All circumstances neutral, base sentence set at the legal minimum.
CP arts. 59–71 · Súm. 231 STJ · Súm. 269 STJ · Súm. 471 STJ (detrações)