Facts
The appellant [X.] was sentenced by the Cantonal Court of Zurich on 11 April 2002 to two years and four months' imprisonment for multiple violations of the NarcA. He began serving the sentence on 28 June 2004 and was conditionally released from custody on 27 August 2005 with a probation period of 3 years. Before the end of the probation period, on 14/15 March 2007, [X.] reoffended by purchasing and selling 56 grams of pure cocaine. In its judgment of 22 May 2008, the Cantonal Court of Zurich established the guilty verdict for (renewed) violation of the NarcA. It ordered the reincarceration of [X.] to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed on 11 April 2002 (remaining sentence: 284 days) and sentenced him to a total term of 24 months' imprisonment, including this prior sentence. It suspended the execution of the prison sentence for 12 months, setting a probation period of five years. It ordered the remaining 12 months of the prison sentence to be served immediately.Considerations
1. The lower court correctly assessed the issue of non-probation or reincarceration under the new law. The application of the provisions on the probation period pursuant to Art. 87 SCC was not necessary, as these elements of the old-law sanction, which have no influence on the organization and institutional process of the execution of sanctions, are subject to the principle of Art. 388 para. 1 SCC and are therefore subject to execution under the old law. 2.1 The lower court has justified the sentencing for the new criminal offence of 18 to 20 months' imprisonment in a manner that is in conformity with federal law. It took into account the no longer minor guilt of the appellant, his relevant prior conviction, the renewed criminal offence during the probation period, as well as other aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 2.2 The denial of the conditional execution of the sentence is also in conformity with federal law, as there were no particularly favourable circumstances within the meaning of Art. 42 para. 2 SCC. The appellant had two prior convictions, one of which was relevant, and had not refrained from further offences despite serving a longer prison sentence. 2.3 The lower court was entitled to order the revocation of the conditional release and the reincarceration, as the renewed criminal offence of the appellant during the probation period gave rise to the assumption of…