Chastain v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Chastain v. State

1941 OK CR 169, 119 P.2d 864, 73 Okla. Crim. 227, 1941 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 228

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 3, 1941

DocketNo. A-10014.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1941 OK CR 169 (Chastain 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

Chastain v. State, 1941 OK CR 169, 119 P.2d 864, 73 Okla. Crim. 227, 1941 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 228 (Okla. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Claude Chastain, was charged jointly with Virgil Mobley in the district court of Caddo county with the crime of burglary in the second degree. Virgil Mobley demanded a severance, and defendant was tried separately before a jury which found him guilty and assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary, from which conviction defendant has appealed.

This appeal was filed on the 19th day of February, 1941, but no. brief has been filed and no1 oral argument has been made in support of defendant’s assignment of errors, although the time to file brief granted by the rules of this court long ago expired. It has been uniformly held under the rules of this court that, when no counsel appears for oral argument and no brief is filed, the court will examine the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the exceptions taken thereto1, and the judgment and sentence, and if no prejudicial error appears, will affirm the judgment.

We have carefully examined the record in this case and find no> prejudicial error which might justify a reversal of this case. The judgment of the district court of Caddo county is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Claude Chastain, was charged jointly with Virgil Mobley in the district court of Caddo county with the crime of burglary in the second degree. Virgil Mobley demanded a severance, and defendant was tried separately before a jury which found him guilty and assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary, from which conviction defendant has appealed.

This appeal was filed on the 19th day of February, 1941, but no. brief has been filed and no1 oral argument has been made in support of defendant’s assignment of errors, although the time to file brief granted by the rules of this court long ago expired. It has been uniformly held under the rules of this court that, when no counsel appears for oral argument and no brief is filed, the court will examine the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the exceptions taken thereto1, and the judgment and sentence, and if no prejudicial error appears, will affirm the judgment.

We have carefully examined the record in this case and find no> prejudicial error which might justify a reversal of this case. The judgment of the district court of Caddo county is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1941 OK CR 169, 119 P.2d 864, 73 Okla. Crim. 227, 1941 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chastain-v-state-oklacrimapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack