Carpenter v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Carpenter v. State

1923 OK CR 174, 215 P. 962, 24 Okla. Crim. 75, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 248

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 23, 1923

DocketNo. A-4291.

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK CR 174 (Carpenter 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

Carpenter v. State, 1923 OK CR 174, 215 P. 962, 24 Okla. Crim. 75, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 248 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Carpenter, plaintiff in error, was by information filed in the county court of Stephens county charged with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor on the 3d day of November, 1921. At the trial, on December 8, 1921, he was found guilty as charged, and by the judgment of the court his punishment was fixed at confinement in the county jail for a term of six months and the payment of a fine of $200 and costs.

Plaintiff in error has' filed no brief and taken no steps to prosecute his appeal. We may therefore assume that he has abandoned his appeal. When the ease was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal.

The motion is sustained, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Carpenter, plaintiff in error, was by information filed in the county court of Stephens county charged with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor on the 3d day of November, 1921. At the trial, on December 8, 1921, he was found guilty as charged, and by the judgment of the court his punishment was fixed at confinement in the county jail for a term of six months and the payment of a fine of $200 and costs.

Plaintiff in error has' filed no brief and taken no steps to prosecute his appeal. We may therefore assume that he has abandoned his appeal. When the ease was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal.

The motion is sustained, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK CR 174, 215 P. 962, 24 Okla. Crim. 75, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-state-oklacrimapp-1923.