Boyt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Boyt v. State

1911 OK CR 22, 113 P. 215, 5 Okla. Crim. 19, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 41

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 6, 1911

DocketNo. A-375.

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK CR 22 (Boyt 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

Boyt v. State, 1911 OK CR 22, 113 P. 215, 5 Okla. Crim. 19, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 41 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

*20 FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge.

Appellant was convicted of malicious mischief, and was fined $250, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in the county jail.

Judgment was rendered iu this ease on the 23d day of July, 1909, and the appellant was granted 60 days within, which to prepare and serve his case-made. This 60 days expired on the 21st day of September, 1909. On the 22d day of September, 1909, 'after the time for serving the case-made had expired, appellant, through his counsel, applied to the county court of Carter county and obtained an order allowing appellant 20 days from said date within which to prepare and file his case-made. The time originally granted appellant had expired, and the court was without power to grant additional time, and such order is void. See Komiski v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 431, 106 Pac. 800; Rasberry v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 613, 103 Pac. 865. We must therefore sustain the motion of the Attorney General to strike the ease-made from the record.

The informat’on and the instructions of the court are correct, and the judgment is in due form.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, Judges, concur.

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

*20 FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge.

Appellant was convicted of malicious mischief, and was fined $250, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in the county jail.

Judgment was rendered iu this ease on the 23d day of July, 1909, and the appellant was granted 60 days within, which to prepare and serve his case-made. This 60 days expired on the 21st day of September, 1909. On the 22d day of September, 1909, 'after the time for serving the case-made had expired, appellant, through his counsel, applied to the county court of Carter county and obtained an order allowing appellant 20 days from said date within which to prepare and file his case-made. The time originally granted appellant had expired, and the court was without power to grant additional time, and such order is void. See Komiski v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 431, 106 Pac. 800; Rasberry v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 613, 103 Pac. 865. We must therefore sustain the motion of the Attorney General to strike the ease-made from the record.

The informat’on and the instructions of the court are correct, and the judgment is in due form.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 22, 113 P. 215, 5 Okla. Crim. 19, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyt-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack