Barnoskie v. State

1924 OK CR 3, 221 P. 516, 26 Okla. Crim. 19, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 2
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 10, 1924
DocketNo. A-4485.
StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK CR 3 (Barnoskie v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnoskie v. State, 1924 OK CR 3, 221 P. 516, 26 Okla. Crim. 19, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 2 (Okla. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error, Cat Barnoskie, was tried for murder upon an information charging that in Sequoyah county on or about December 26, 1921, he did kill and murder one Roland Kenned, by shooting him with a shotgun. The jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of four years. From the judgment rendered in pursuance of the verdict, an appeal was perfected by filing in this court October 30, 1922, a petition in error, with case-made.

His counsel of record have filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, for the reason that on the 6th day of January, 1923, the said Cat Barnoskie was granted a full, complete, and unconditional pardon for the offense of which he was convicted. A duly certified copy of said pardon is attached1 to the motion to dismiss, which pardon was signed by Hon. J. B. A. Robertson, then Governor, and is duly and properly attested and1 authenticated by Hon. Joe S. Morris, then secretary of state, under the great seal of the state.

By numerous decisions of this court it is held that, when an appeal from a judgment of conviction is pending in this court, and the plaintiff in error applies for a pardon, and the same has been granted, and the fact that a pardon has been granted1 is brought to the attention of this court, the appeal will be dismissed. Ernst v. State, 17 Okla. Cr. 282, 187 Pac. 930; Brown v. State, 16 Okla. 505, 184 Pac. 912; Ballew v. *21 State, 15 Okla. Cr. 645, 179 Pac. 945. It follows that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well founded.

It is therefore considered, adjudged, and ordered that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, and the cause remanded' to the trial court.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

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

Related

Tobin v. O'Brieter
1906 OK 28 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1906)
Ballew v. State
1919 OK CR 121 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1919)
Brown v. State
1919 OK CR 306 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1919)
Ernst v. State
1920 OK CR 51 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1924 OK CR 3, 221 P. 516, 26 Okla. Crim. 19, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnoskie-v-state-oklacrimapp-1924.