Criminal Sentencing Calculator (Brazil)

Continue in the tool

three-phase criminal sentencing calculation step by step

Three-phase sentencing: how each phase builds on the last (CP arts. 59-68)

A sentence is not one single calculation: it runs through three successive phases, each with its own criteria and its own limit, and the result of one becomes the starting point of the next (CP art. 68). Getting the order wrong, for instance applying a special cause of decrease before the mitigating factors, is already enough to void the calculation.

How each phase builds on the last

In the 1st phase, the base penalty comes from analyzing the 8 judicial circumstances under art. 59: culpability, criminal record, social conduct, personality, motives, circumstances and consequences of the offense, and the victim's behavior. By default, each factor deemed unfavorable adds 1/8 of the gap between the offense's minimum and maximum penalty, an editable starting point for each case; a simple robbery (4-to-10-year penalty, a 6-year gap) with a single unfavorable factor sets the base penalty at 4 years and 9 months, 9 months above the minimum.
In the 2nd phase, aggravating and mitigating factors (arts. 61-66) apply as a fraction of the already-set base penalty, never of the offense's legal range, and STJ Súmula 231 locks the result at the statutory minimum if the sum of mitigating factors would push the sentence below it: a simple theft (1-to-4-year penalty) with the base penalty already at its 1-year floor plus a spontaneous-confession mitigating factor (1/6) reduces nothing in practice, the intermediate penalty stays at 1 year.
In the 3rd phase, special causes of increase and decrease (arts. 61-70) apply to the intermediate penalty; causes from the Penal Code's general part add up among themselves, but causes from the special part in the same group, for example several robbery aggravating clauses, only count the one with the largest fraction, never the sum of both (art. 68, sole paragraph). The final result still sets the initial regime: above 8 years it is always closed, between 4 and 8 it is semi-open, up to 4 years it is open for a first-time offender (CP art. 33 §2), with STJ Súmula 269 carving out an exception for a repeat offender with a sentence of up to 4 years, who also goes to the semi-open regime instead of the closed one.

Three cases, three phases deciding the outcome

Simple robbery, 1 unfavorable factor, no aggravating factors

Input: Pena de 4 a 10 anos, 1 circunstância judicial desfavorável (culpabilidade), sem agravantes/atenuantes, sem causas, réu primário
Expected output: Pena-base 4 anos e 9 meses; sem alteração nas fases seguintes; pena final 4 anos e 9 meses, regime semiaberto

Even with no other circumstance, that single factor already takes the defendant out of the open regime: above 4 years, even for a first-time offender, the regime rises to semi-open.

Simple theft, mitigating factor locked by Súmula 231

Input: Pena de 1 a 4 anos, nenhuma circunstância desfavorável, 1 atenuante de confissão espontânea (1/6), réu primário, crime não violento
Expected output: Pena-base 1 ano (mínimo); atenuante travada pela Súmula 231, pena final 1 ano, regime aberto, cabe substituição por pena restritiva de direitos

The mitigating factor exists and is recorded in the calculation memo, but reduces nothing in practice because the base penalty was already at the statutory floor.

Robbery aggravated by use of a firearm, repeat offender

Input: Pena de 5 anos e 4 meses a 15 anos, 1 vetor desfavorável, agravante de reincidência (1/6), causa de aumento por emprego de arma de fogo (1/3, parte especial)
Expected output: Pena-base 6 anos e 6 meses; pena intermediária 7 anos e 7 meses; pena final 10 anos e 1 mês, regime fechado, sem direito a substituição

A repeat offender with a final sentence above 4 years goes straight to the closed regime, without the Súmula 269 exception that only applies up to that limit.

Full tool FAQ

What is the three-phase method?

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).

How much does each unfavorable judicial circumstance add?

Can mitigating factors reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum?

When is alternative sentencing (PRD) available?

When is a suspended sentence (sursis) available?

What is pretrial detention credit?

How is the initial regime determined?

Frequently asked questions

Do all unfavorable art. 59 circumstances weigh the same on the base penalty?

In this calculator, yes, by default: each unfavorable factor adds 1/8 of the gap between the offense's minimum and maximum penalty, but that fraction is just an editable starting point. In actual practice, a judge can give different weight to each circumstance, as long as each one is individually justified (CF art. 93, IX).

Can a mitigating factor zero out the sentence?

No. STJ Súmula 231 bars a mitigating factor from reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum set for the offense, even if the mathematical sum of the mitigating factors would produce that result; the 1st phase's legal floor is the absolute limit in the 2nd phase.

Do two special-part causes of increase add up?

Not when they belong to the same group: CP art. 68, sole paragraph, requires applying only the largest fraction among concurring special-part causes of increase (or decrease), discarding the others in that same block. General-part causes, on the other hand, add up normally among themselves and with the largest special-part one.

Next steps

Continue in the tool

Open full tool

three-phase criminal sentencing calculation step by step

Three-phase sentencing: how each phase builds on the last (CP arts. 59-68)

How each phase builds on the last

In the 1st phase, the base penalty comes from analyzing the 8 judicial circumstances under art. 59: culpability, criminal record, social conduct, personality, motives, circumstances and consequences of the offense, and the victim's behavior. By default, each factor deemed unfavorable adds 1/8 of the gap between the offense's minimum and maximum penalty, an editable starting point for each case; a simple robbery (4-to-10-year penalty, a 6-year gap) with a single unfavorable factor sets the base penalty at 4 years and 9 months, 9 months above the minimum.

In the 2nd phase, aggravating and mitigating factors (arts. 61-66) apply as a fraction of the already-set base penalty, never of the offense's legal range, and STJ Súmula 231 locks the result at the statutory minimum if the sum of mitigating factors would push the sentence below it: a simple theft (1-to-4-year penalty) with the base penalty already at its 1-year floor plus a spontaneous-confession mitigating factor (1/6) reduces nothing in practice, the intermediate penalty stays at 1 year.

In the 3rd phase, special causes of increase and decrease (arts. 61-70) apply to the intermediate penalty; causes from the Penal Code's general part add up among themselves, but causes from the special part in the same group, for example several robbery aggravating clauses, only count the one with the largest fraction, never the sum of both (art. 68, sole paragraph). The final result still sets the initial regime: above 8 years it is always closed, between 4 and 8 it is semi-open, up to 4 years it is open for a first-time offender (CP art. 33 §2), with STJ Súmula 269 carving out an exception for a repeat offender with a sentence of up to 4 years, who also goes to the semi-open regime instead of the closed one.

Three cases, three phases deciding the outcome

Simple robbery, 1 unfavorable factor, no aggravating factors

Input: Pena de 4 a 10 anos, 1 circunstância judicial desfavorável (culpabilidade), sem agravantes/atenuantes, sem causas, réu primário
Expected output: Pena-base 4 anos e 9 meses; sem alteração nas fases seguintes; pena final 4 anos e 9 meses, regime semiaberto

Even with no other circumstance, that single factor already takes the defendant out of the open regime: above 4 years, even for a first-time offender, the regime rises to semi-open.

Simple theft, mitigating factor locked by Súmula 231

Input: Pena de 1 a 4 anos, nenhuma circunstância desfavorável, 1 atenuante de confissão espontânea (1/6), réu primário, crime não violento
Expected output: Pena-base 1 ano (mínimo); atenuante travada pela Súmula 231, pena final 1 ano, regime aberto, cabe substituição por pena restritiva de direitos

The mitigating factor exists and is recorded in the calculation memo, but reduces nothing in practice because the base penalty was already at the statutory floor.

Robbery aggravated by use of a firearm, repeat offender

Input: Pena de 5 anos e 4 meses a 15 anos, 1 vetor desfavorável, agravante de reincidência (1/6), causa de aumento por emprego de arma de fogo (1/3, parte especial)
Expected output: Pena-base 6 anos e 6 meses; pena intermediária 7 anos e 7 meses; pena final 10 anos e 1 mês, regime fechado, sem direito a substituição

A repeat offender with a final sentence above 4 years goes straight to the closed regime, without the Súmula 269 exception that only applies up to that limit.

Full tool FAQ

What is the three-phase method?

How much does each unfavorable judicial circumstance add?

Can mitigating factors reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum?

When is alternative sentencing (PRD) available?

When is a suspended sentence (sursis) available?

What is pretrial detention credit?

How is the initial regime determined?

Frequently asked questions