People v. Kiene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kiene

259 A.D.2d 711, 685 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2665

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 711 (People v. Kiene) 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. Kiene, 259 A.D.2d 711, 685 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered October 25, 1996, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his prior conviction of escape in the first degree under Indictment No. 37/96. The defendant also purportedly appeals from an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered October 25, 1996, under Superior Court Information No. 80/96.

Ordered that the purported appeal from the amended judgment rendered under Superior Court Information No. 80/96 is dismissed, as no appeal was ever taken from that amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment rendered under Indictment No. 37/96 is affirmed.

On October 25, 1996, amended judgments were rendered against the defendant under Indictment No. 37/96 and Superior Court Information No. 80/96. The defendant’s notice of appeal, dated November 13, 1996, refers solely to the amended judgment under Indictment No. 37/96. Consequently, the purported appeal from the amended judgment rendered against the defendant under Superior Court Information No. 80/96 is dismissed.

The issues raised in the defendant’s brief, which only pertain to the amended judgment rendered under Superior Court Information No. 80/96, are not properly before this Court on the appeal from the amended judgment rendered under Indictment No. 37/96. In any event, the court’s certification of the defendant as a sex offender pursuant to New York’s “Megan’s Law” (Correction Law § 168-d [1]) would not be reviewable on an appeal from the amended judgment rendered under Superior Court Information No. 80/96, even if such an appeal had been timely taken (see, People v Hernandez, 250 AD2d 704; see also, People v Stevens, 235 AD2d 440, affd 91 NY2d 270). Bracken, J. R, Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered October 25, 1996, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his prior conviction of escape in the first degree under Indictment No. 37/96. The defendant also purportedly appeals from an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered October 25, 1996, under Superior Court Information No. 80/96.

Ordered that the purported appeal from the amended judgment rendered under Superior Court Information No. 80/96 is dismissed, as no appeal was ever taken from that amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment rendered under Indictment No. 37/96 is affirmed.

On October 25, 1996, amended judgments were rendered against the defendant under Indictment No. 37/96 and Superior Court Information No. 80/96. The defendant’s notice of appeal, dated November 13, 1996, refers solely to the amended judgment under Indictment No. 37/96. Consequently, the purported appeal from the amended judgment rendered against the defendant under Superior Court Information No. 80/96 is dismissed.

The issues raised in the defendant’s brief, which only pertain to the amended judgment rendered under Superior Court Information No. 80/96, are not properly before this Court on the appeal from the amended judgment rendered under Indictment No. 37/96. In any event, the court’s certification of the defendant as a sex offender pursuant to New York’s “Megan’s Law” (Correction Law § 168-d [1]) would not be reviewable on an appeal from the amended judgment rendered under Superior Court Information No. 80/96, even if such an appeal had been timely taken (see, People v Hernandez, 250 AD2d 704; see also, People v Stevens, 235 AD2d 440, affd 91 NY2d 270). Bracken, J. R, Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 711, 685 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kiene-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack