Kyricopoulos v. Attorney Gen.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Kyricopoulos v. Attorney Gen.

114 N.E.3d 939, 481 Mass. 1024

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 24, 2019

DocketSJC-12608

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 N.E.3d 939 (Kyricopoulos v. Attorney Gen.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kyricopoulos v. Attorney Gen., 114 N.E.3d 939, 481 Mass. 1024 (Mass. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Kyricopoulos has now filed what appears to have been intended as a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Technically speaking, rule 2:21 does not apply in this situation because Kyricopoulos is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. It is nonetheless clear that he is not entitled to review pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He continues to raise issues related to the delay in the assembly of the record in the trial court. To the extent that the record was assembled and Kyricopoulos's direct appeal was properly entered in the Appeals Court, the issue is moot. To the extent that Kyricopoulos claims that, in connection with the delay in the assembly of the record, members of the bar and the judiciary falsified docket entries, committed perjury, or otherwise sought to deprive Kyricopoulos of his rights, his arguments are neither adequate appellate argument nor substantiated by the record. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See also Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, 696 N.E.2d 547, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003, 119 S.Ct. 514, 142 L.Ed.2d 426 (1998), and cases cited.⁴

The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

*941The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kyricopoulos has now filed what appears to have been intended as a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Technically speaking, rule 2:21 does not apply in this situation because Kyricopoulos is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. It is nonetheless clear that he is not entitled to review pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He continues to raise issues related to the delay in the assembly of the record in the trial court. To the extent that the record was assembled and Kyricopoulos's direct appeal was properly entered in the Appeals Court, the issue is moot. To the extent that Kyricopoulos claims that, in connection with the delay in the assembly of the record, members of the bar and the judiciary falsified docket entries, committed perjury, or otherwise sought to deprive Kyricopoulos of his rights, his arguments are neither adequate appellate argument nor substantiated by the record. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See also Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, 696 N.E.2d 547, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003, 119 S.Ct. 514, 142 L.Ed.2d 426 (1998), and cases cited.⁴

The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

*941The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.E.3d 939, 481 Mass. 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kyricopoulos-v-attorney-gen-mass-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack