People v. Ennis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ennis

119 A.D.2d 689, 501 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55609

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 689 (People v. Ennis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ennis, 119 A.D.2d 689, 501 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brownstein, J.), imposed January 21, 1976, upon his conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, the resentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment of riot more than four years.

Appeal dismissed as academic.

The defendant has already served the term of imprisonment imposed upon resentence.

The issues sought to be raised regarding the underlying conviction are not properly before us on this purported appeal from the resentence. The defendant had an opportunity to raise these claims on his prior appeals to this court. In fact, two of the three claims were previously raised and were found [690]*690to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brownstein, J.), imposed January 21, 1976, upon his conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, the resentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment of riot more than four years.

Appeal dismissed as academic.

The defendant has already served the term of imprisonment imposed upon resentence.

The issues sought to be raised regarding the underlying conviction are not properly before us on this purported appeal from the resentence. The defendant had an opportunity to raise these claims on his prior appeals to this court. In fact, two of the three claims were previously raised and were found [690]*690to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 689, 501 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ennis-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack