Drumn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Drumn v. State

1957 OK CR 90, 318 P.2d 893, 1957 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 227

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 9, 1957

DocketNo. A-12489

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1957 OK CR 90 (Drumn 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

Drumn v. State, 1957 OK CR 90, 318 P.2d 893, 1957 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 227 (Okla. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

POWELL, Judge.

James Lee Drumn, plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information filed in the district court •of Washington County with the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, after having been previously convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant waived a jury and was tried before the court. He was sentenced to serve one year in the State Penitentiary, and to pay a fine of $1, the minimum for the crime charged. The evidence is conclusive and unrefuted.

Here on appeal, but one specification of error is advanced, and being that: “The court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the information on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, in that there had been no second and subsequent offense under the 19SS drunk driving act.”

The above proposition has recently had the attention of this court in the case of Miller v. State, 316 P.2d 203, and the conclusions there reached are contrary to the contention here advanced by the defendant. That case may be referred to for reasons for our conclusions.

See, also, the following authorities: Spann v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 369, 103 P.2d 389; State v. Buttignoni, 118 Wash. 110, 203 P. 76; State v. Staples, 100 N.H. 283, 124 A.2d 187; and State ex rel. Griffith v. Anderson, 117 Kan. 540, 232 P. 238.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

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

POWELL, Judge.

James Lee Drumn, plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information filed in the district court •of Washington County with the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, after having been previously convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant waived a jury and was tried before the court. He was sentenced to serve one year in the State Penitentiary, and to pay a fine of $1, the minimum for the crime charged. The evidence is conclusive and unrefuted.

Here on appeal, but one specification of error is advanced, and being that: “The court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the information on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, in that there had been no second and subsequent offense under the 19SS drunk driving act.”

The above proposition has recently had the attention of this court in the case of Miller v. State, 316 P.2d 203, and the conclusions there reached are contrary to the contention here advanced by the defendant. That case may be referred to for reasons for our conclusions.

See, also, the following authorities: Spann v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 369, 103 P.2d 389; State v. Buttignoni, 118 Wash. 110, 203 P. 76; State v. Staples, 100 N.H. 283, 124 A.2d 187; and State ex rel. Griffith v. Anderson, 117 Kan. 540, 232 P. 238.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1957 OK CR 90, 318 P.2d 893, 1957 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drumn-v-state-oklacrimapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack