Background
Jefferson Mendes Antunes was prosecuted for the attempted simple theft of two cuts of meat valued at R$317.00 (approximately 26.16% of the applicable minimum wage at the time). The stolen goods were fully returned to the victim and no social disturbance resulted. The trial court did not apply the princípio da insignificância (de minimis or insignificance principle), which would have rendered the conduct materially atypical and precluded criminal liability.
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus before the STJ, arguing the theft was trivial in value, the goods had an alimentary character suggestive of need-driven theft (furto famélico), and that he was technically a first-time offender. He also contended that pending criminal proceedings and inquiries should not be used to establish criminal habituality, given the constitutional presumption of innocence and STJ Súmula 444, which bars the use of such proceedings to increase the base sentence. The reporting justice partially acknowledged the writ but denied the order, finding the value exceeded the 10% minimum-wage threshold and that the defendant demonstrated a pattern of property crimes.
Antunes then filed an agravo regimental (internal appeal) against that single-justice decision, reiterating his original arguments and urging the full Sixth Panel to grant the habeas corpus relief previously denied.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Panel, voting unanimously in a virtual session held May 28 – June 3, 2026, declined to hear (não conheceu) the internal appeal. The court applied STJ Súmula 182, which requires an appellant to specifically challenge each and every ground of the decision being appealed; a mere reiteration of the original habeas corpus arguments does not satisfy that standard. Because the defense failed to engage with two independently sufficient grounds of the prior ruling — namely, the impropriety of using habeas corpus as a substitute for an ordinary special appeal, and the impossibility of reviewing the furto privilegiado (petty-theft reduction) issue without prior adjudication below — the panel left the earlier decision intact on its own terms.
The court also reaffirmed the substantive basis for denying the insignificance principle. Where the value of stolen goods surpasses 10% of the minimum wage and the defendant exhibits contumácia (persistent criminal conduct), the principle does not apply. Citing AgRg no HC n. 1.035.403/SC (Fifth Panel, March 13, 2026), the court confirmed this two-part threshold as settled jurisprudence.
Additionally, the court clarified that consulting pending criminal proceedings and open inquiries to assess criminal habituality for the purposes of the insignificance analysis does not conflict with Súmula 444/STJ. That súmula governs sentencing dosimetry, not the threshold question of material typicality. Pending proceedings may therefore legitimately inform whether the insignificance principle applies, without amounting to an unconstitutional penalty enhancement. This position was supported by reference to AgRg no AREsp n. 3.105.382/RJ (Fifth Panel, March 10, 2026).
Key Takeaways
- An agravo regimental must specifically rebut every independent ground of the challenged decision; blanket reiteration of the original petition triggers dismissal under STJ Súmula 182.
- The STJ’s insignificance principle requires the stolen value to fall below 10% of the minimum wage and the defendant to have no demonstrated pattern of criminal conduct; either factor alone can defeat the claim.
- Pending criminal proceedings and police inquiries may be used to establish criminal habituality for the purpose of the material typicality analysis, without violating Súmula 444/STJ or the presumption of innocence — those pending matters simply cannot be used to increase the base sentence at sentencing.
- Habeas corpus cannot substitute for an ordinary special appeal (recurso especial); attempting to do so renders the writ improper and limits the scope of STJ review.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the STJ’s consistent line holding that the insignificance principle is not a mechanical rule triggered by any low-value theft. Courts must assess both the objective monetary threshold and the defendant’s broader conduct profile. The 10% minimum-wage benchmark functions as a necessary but not sufficient condition: defendants with a history of property crimes — even one evidenced only by pending proceedings — remain outside the principle’s protective scope.
The clarification on Súmula 444/STJ is practically significant for defense counsel. The court draws a clear line between sentencing (where pending proceedings are prohibited as aggravating factors) and the threshold typicality inquiry (where they are permissible indicators of habituality). Attorneys challenging insignificance denials must address this distinction directly, or risk having appeals dismissed for failure to engage with all grounds of the lower ruling.