Condo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Condo v. State

1964 OK CR 21, 389 P.2d 648, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 12, 1964

DocketA-13447

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1964 OK CR 21 (Condo 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

Condo v. State, 1964 OK CR 21, 389 P.2d 648, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150 (Okla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Judge. ■

The Plaintiff in Error, D. R. Condo, was charged by information in. County Court in Haskell County, Oklahoma, with the offense of Refusing To. Allow His Cattle To Be Tested. He was tripd by a jury who returned a verdict of guilty, assessing his-punishment at a fine of $100.-00. Thereafter the Plaintiff in Error filed a.Motion For New Trial, and the same w.as overruled by the court. . From the verdict of the Jury and the Order overruling the Motion 'For New. Trial, th.e Plaintiff in Error, filed an attempted appeal on the 11th day of October, 1963.

Thereafter on the 7th day of November, 19.63, ,th,e .State, .of ; Oklahoma, . by. land through its Attorney. General, filed a Motion to Dismiss this purported' appeal for the reason that the casemade does not contain a Judgment and. Sentence; no response has been filed to the Motion to Dismiss. .

We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss should be sustained, for the reason that the casemade does not contain a formal judgment and sentence as required by law. This Court has repeatedly held:

“Where appeal was taken from alleged judgment of conviction and the transcript of the record or casemade contains no copy of the judgment of the trial court, this Court does not acquire jurisdiction of the appeal, and such appeal will be dismissed.” Peters v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 174; See also: Helterbrand v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 169; Wilson v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 172; Adams v. State, Okl.Cr., 372 P. 2d 884 and Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 362 P.2d 113.

The purported appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

JOHNSON, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.

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

BUSSEY, Judge. ■

The Plaintiff in Error, D. R. Condo, was charged by information in. County Court in Haskell County, Oklahoma, with the offense of Refusing To. Allow His Cattle To Be Tested. He was tripd by a jury who returned a verdict of guilty, assessing his-punishment at a fine of $100.-00. Thereafter the Plaintiff in Error filed a.Motion For New Trial, and the same w.as overruled by the court. . From the verdict of the Jury and the Order overruling the Motion 'For New. Trial, th.e Plaintiff in Error, filed an attempted appeal on the 11th day of October, 1963.

Thereafter on the 7th day of November, 19.63, ,th,e .State, .of ; Oklahoma, . by. land through its Attorney. General, filed a Motion to Dismiss this purported' appeal for the reason that the casemade does not contain a Judgment and. Sentence; no response has been filed to the Motion to Dismiss. .

We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss should be sustained, for the reason that the casemade does not contain a formal judgment and sentence as required by law. This Court has repeatedly held:

“Where appeal was taken from alleged judgment of conviction and the transcript of the record or casemade contains no copy of the judgment of the trial court, this Court does not acquire jurisdiction of the appeal, and such appeal will be dismissed.” Peters v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 174; See also: Helterbrand v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 169; Wilson v. State, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 172; Adams v. State, Okl.Cr., 372 P. 2d 884 and Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 362 P.2d 113.

The purported appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

JOHNSON, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1964 OK CR 21, 389 P.2d 648, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/condo-v-state-oklacrimapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack