Cantrell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Cantrell v. State

1965 OK CR 92, 404 P.2d 81, 1965 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 256

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 14, 1965

DocketNo. A-13671

StatusPublished

This text of 1965 OK CR 92 (Cantrell 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

Cantrell v. State, 1965 OK CR 92, 404 P.2d 81, 1965 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 256 (Okla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

On the 9th day of September, 1964, Doyle L. Cantrell, hereinafter referred to as defendant appeared in open court with his .attorney, Bruce M. Townsend, and entered liis plea of guilty to the charge of Indecent Exposure in District Court Case No. 20661. Thereafter on the 29th day of September, 1964, this matter came on for judgment and sentence and application of the defendant for an order suspending said sentence, and the court having heard the arguments of •counsel, and having considered the report of probation officer, Mr. Al B. Reed, sentenced the defendant to a term of five years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, -two years of which were suspended.

The defendant thereupon gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Court of ■Criminal Appeals, and a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The sole question urged on appeal is that the judgment and sentence entered is excessive. With this contention we cannot .agree.

The report of the probation officer contained within the record discloses that pri- or to the rendition of judgment and sentence, defendant had on sundry occasions been sentenced for various violations of the law, and was at the time of rendition •of judgment and sentence under probation .and reporting to the Federal authorities •at Muskogee.

Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court was most lenient and well within the range of punishment authorized by law.

The record discloses that the defendant was represented by competent counsel at all stages of the proceeding and at the time he éntered his plea of guilty, and it further appearing that he entered his plea of guilty with full knowledge of the consequences of such plea, we are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

On the 9th day of September, 1964, Doyle L. Cantrell, hereinafter referred to as defendant appeared in open court with his .attorney, Bruce M. Townsend, and entered liis plea of guilty to the charge of Indecent Exposure in District Court Case No. 20661. Thereafter on the 29th day of September, 1964, this matter came on for judgment and sentence and application of the defendant for an order suspending said sentence, and the court having heard the arguments of •counsel, and having considered the report of probation officer, Mr. Al B. Reed, sentenced the defendant to a term of five years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, -two years of which were suspended.

The defendant thereupon gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Court of ■Criminal Appeals, and a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The sole question urged on appeal is that the judgment and sentence entered is excessive. With this contention we cannot .agree.

The report of the probation officer contained within the record discloses that pri- or to the rendition of judgment and sentence, defendant had on sundry occasions been sentenced for various violations of the law, and was at the time of rendition •of judgment and sentence under probation .and reporting to the Federal authorities •at Muskogee.

Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court was most lenient and well within the range of punishment authorized by law.

The record discloses that the defendant was represented by competent counsel at all stages of the proceeding and at the time he éntered his plea of guilty, and it further appearing that he entered his plea of guilty with full knowledge of the consequences of such plea, we are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1965 OK CR 92, 404 P.2d 81, 1965 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantrell-v-state-oklacrimapp-1965.