Cohn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Cohn v. State

1910 OK CR 238, 113 P. 216, 4 Okla. Crim. 498, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 19, 1910

DocketNo. A-174.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1910 OK CR 238 (Cohn 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

Cohn v. State, 1910 OK CR 238, 113 P. 216, 4 Okla. Crim. 498, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDSON, Judge.

The purported case-made herein contains no certificate of the trial judge, nor is the record certified, to, either by the judge of the county court of Pittsburg county, or by the clerk of such court. The papers before us, therefore, constitute neither a case-made nor a transcript, and for that reason cannot be considered by this court.

Also the purported case-made shows that the court overruled plaintiff in error’s motion for a new trial and pronounced sentence on March 19, 1909, and on that day gave plaintiff in erroi thirty days within which to serve his case-made on the count} attorney. On April 17, 1909, the court granted plaintiff in error, on the latter’s motion, five additional days for the service of his *499 case-made. The time for serving the case-made, therefore, expired on April 23, 1909. There is nothing in the record to show that. it was ever served on the county attorney. The purported case-made contains a stipulation signed by the county attorney to the effect that he waives notice of the time and place of presenting same to the judge for settlement and signing, and agrees that the same may be settled and signed by the judge at the latter’s convenience. This is dated May 8, 1909, fifteen days after the time allowed for serving the case-made. That does not show that the case-made was served on the county attorney; and if it did, it would be no showing that it was served within the time allowed. No ■ case-made will be considered by this court which does not show positively and affirmatively that it' was served upon the county attorney within the time allowed by the trial court. Box v. State, ante, 111 Pac. 655; Wilson v. United States, ante, 111 Pac. 659; Abel v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399, 41 Pac. 342; Polson v. Purcell, 4 Okla. 93, 46 Pac. 578; Horner v. Christy, 4 Okla. 553, 46 Pac. 561; Gibson v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 594, 107 Pac. 739.

The appeal herein is therefore dismissed, and a mandate will issue directing the county court of Pittsburg county to enforce its judgment herein.

FUBMAN, Presiding Judge, and DOYLE, Judge, concur.

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

RICHARDSON, Judge.

The purported case-made herein contains no certificate of the trial judge, nor is the record certified, to, either by the judge of the county court of Pittsburg county, or by the clerk of such court. The papers before us, therefore, constitute neither a case-made nor a transcript, and for that reason cannot be considered by this court.

Also the purported case-made shows that the court overruled plaintiff in error’s motion for a new trial and pronounced sentence on March 19, 1909, and on that day gave plaintiff in erroi thirty days within which to serve his case-made on the count} attorney. On April 17, 1909, the court granted plaintiff in error, on the latter’s motion, five additional days for the service of his *499 case-made. The time for serving the case-made, therefore, expired on April 23, 1909. There is nothing in the record to show that. it was ever served on the county attorney. The purported case-made contains a stipulation signed by the county attorney to the effect that he waives notice of the time and place of presenting same to the judge for settlement and signing, and agrees that the same may be settled and signed by the judge at the latter’s convenience. This is dated May 8, 1909, fifteen days after the time allowed for serving the case-made. That does not show that the case-made was served on the county attorney; and if it did, it would be no showing that it was served within the time allowed. No ■ case-made will be considered by this court which does not show positively and affirmatively that it' was served upon the county attorney within the time allowed by the trial court. Box v. State, ante, 111 Pac. 655; Wilson v. United States, ante, 111 Pac. 659; Abel v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399, 41 Pac. 342; Polson v. Purcell, 4 Okla. 93, 46 Pac. 578; Horner v. Christy, 4 Okla. 553, 46 Pac. 561; Gibson v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 594, 107 Pac. 739.

The appeal herein is therefore dismissed, and a mandate will issue directing the county court of Pittsburg county to enforce its judgment herein.

FUBMAN, Presiding Judge, and DOYLE, Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK CR 238, 113 P. 216, 4 Okla. Crim. 498, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohn-v-state-oklacrimapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack