Daniels v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Daniels v. State

1922 OK CR 52, 204 P. 936, 21 Okla. Crim. 72, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 208

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 14, 1922

DocketNo. A-3899.

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK CR 52 (Daniels 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

Daniels v. State, 1922 OK CR 52, 204 P. 936, 21 Okla. Crim. 72, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 208 (Okla. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the county court of Tulsa county, wherein Ora Daniels, plaintiff in error, was convicted on a charge that she did have in herí possession intoxicating liquors, to wit, 40 gallons of Choctaw beer, and her punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement for 60 days in the county jail. The judgment was rendered October 14,1920, and the appeal filed in this court January 20, 1920.

No brief has been filed in behalf of the plaintiff in error, and when the ease was called for final submission it was sub *73 mitted on tbe motion of tbe Attorney General to affirm for failure to prosecute tbe appeal. An examination of tbe record discloses that tbe proof on tbe part of tbe state fully sustains tbe allegations of tbe information, and, finding no prejudicial error, tbe judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the county court of Tulsa county, wherein Ora Daniels, plaintiff in error, was convicted on a charge that she did have in herí possession intoxicating liquors, to wit, 40 gallons of Choctaw beer, and her punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement for 60 days in the county jail. The judgment was rendered October 14,1920, and the appeal filed in this court January 20, 1920.

No brief has been filed in behalf of the plaintiff in error, and when the ease was called for final submission it was sub *73 mitted on tbe motion of tbe Attorney General to affirm for failure to prosecute tbe appeal. An examination of tbe record discloses that tbe proof on tbe part of tbe state fully sustains tbe allegations of tbe information, and, finding no prejudicial error, tbe judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK CR 52, 204 P. 936, 21 Okla. Crim. 72, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-state-oklacrimapp-1922.