Suspension of sentence refused on merits and medical grounds after no fresh change in circumstances was shown.

A fourth request for suspension of sentence was rejected because the earlier application had already been refused on merits after considering the appellant's criminal antecedents and the allegations, and no fresh change in circumstances was shown. The medical record noted COPD with acute exacerbation, pulmonary hypertension, cor pulmonale, systemic hypertension and PLWHA, but it also showed improvement and did not establish any deterioration since the prior rejection. The court treated the cited precedent as factually distinct, since that case involved a much more severe incapacity and need for attendants. Suspension of sentence was therefore declined on both merits and medical grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to suspension of sentence on merits and medical grounds.

Analysis: The application was a fourth request for suspension of sentence. The earlier application had already been rejected on merits after considering the appellant's criminal antecedents and the allegations against him, and no fresh change in circumstances was shown. On the medical material, the report indicated COPD with acute exacerbation, pulmonary hypertension, cor pulmonale, systemic hypertension and PLWHA, but also showed improvement in the appellant's condition and did not establish any deterioration since the earlier rejection. The judgment relied upon by the appellant was held to be factually distinct because that case involved a far more severe incapacity and need for attendants.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to suspension of sentence and the application was rejected on merits and on medical grounds.

---