Cox v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Cox v. State

1967 OK CR 20, 424 P.2d 95

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 15, 1967

DocketNo. A-14070

StatusPublished

This text of 1967 OK CR 20 (Cox 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

Cox v. State, 1967 OK CR 20, 424 P.2d 95 (Okla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge.

Richard E. Cox, Sr., hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, for the crime of Embezzlement, and from the judgment and sentence fixT ing his punishment at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of three years, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

This cause was summarily submitted under the provisions of Rule 6 of this Court, 22 O.S.A. c. 18 Appendix, on the 29th day of December, 1966, and from an examination of the record we are of the opinion that defendant was represented by able and competent counsel, the evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, the punishment imposed is well within the range provided by law, and the record is free of fundamental error. Under such circum[96]*96stances, we are of the opinion the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

BRETT, J., and NIX, P. I.. concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge.

Richard E. Cox, Sr., hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, for the crime of Embezzlement, and from the judgment and sentence fixT ing his punishment at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of three years, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

This cause was summarily submitted under the provisions of Rule 6 of this Court, 22 O.S.A. c. 18 Appendix, on the 29th day of December, 1966, and from an examination of the record we are of the opinion that defendant was represented by able and competent counsel, the evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, the punishment imposed is well within the range provided by law, and the record is free of fundamental error. Under such circum[96]*96stances, we are of the opinion the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

BRETT, J., and NIX, P. I.. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1967 OK CR 20, 424 P.2d 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-state-oklacrimapp-1967.