In 2018 Anthony Colin Finnegan was sentenced to 21 years' jail for the 2016 murder of Peter John Fitzgerald.

The 56-year-old was stomped to death at his Summerhill unit by Finnegan after a night of drinking.

Finnegan's appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on March 3 but the bench only published its reasons for dismissing the appeal on Monday.

READ MORE: Summerhill stomping killer's murder appeal dismissed

Justice Robert Pearce said neither the challenge to conviction or sentence were made out by the appellant.

He said in terms of the appeal against conviction the case against the appellant was very strong.

"The path to the finding of guilt is clear," Justice Pearce said.

The appellant alleged one or both of the two other people at Mr Fitzgerald's house the evening he was killed were criminally responsible for the victim's death, but Justice Pearce said on the evidence the jury was correct in excluding those alternative scenarios.

An argument by Finnegan's lawyer Mai Truong that her client was not physically capable of killing Mr Fitzgerald in the manner alleged by the prosecution, having broken his leg in early 2016 and having it "re-broken" in an assault in mid-2016, was not enough to create reasonable doubt of his guilt said Justice Pearce.

"There was ample evidence from which it was open to the jury to find that the appellant was, despite the evidence of an injury to his left leg, capable of stomping on Mr Fitzgerald's head with his right foot," he said.

Justice Pearce said Finnegan's argument his sentence was "manifestly excessive" was not upheld and the trial judge had determined a proportionate sentence of 21 years' jail, with a non-parole period of 14 years.

He said the trial judge had correctly taken into account Finnegan's background including a "a very poor record for offending, for crimes of violence and dishonesty in particular."

"The learned trial judge correctly recognised the appellant's criminal history was a significant factor in sentencing," Justice Pearce said.

"His Honour was correct to assert that protection of the public was an important sentencing factor."

Justice Pearce said contrary to Finnegan's counsel's submission, he displayed no remorse.

He said Finnegan's intoxication during the crime carried no mitigation.

"The appellant complains that more weight should have been given to the evidence that 'he was heavily intoxicated with alcohol and illicit drugs, and did not have the full mens rea as a reasonably sober person would'," Justice Pearce said.

"The assault was spontaneous and in response to Mr Fitzgerald's initial aggression. However, the damaging blows were not inflicted in self-defence, but when Mr Fitzgerald was on the ground, unable to defend himself and completely vulnerable to attack.

"It would be obvious to almost anyone that such brutal and repeated blows to the face and head would likely result in the death of the victim.

"No leniency could be extended to a person who, having demonstrated a propensity to violence after consuming alcohol, again acted violently when heavily intoxicated.

"Intoxication did not cause the appellant to act in any way which was out of character."