Dunn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Dunn v. State

1971 OK CR 318, 488 P.2d 606

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 2, 1971

DocketA-16017

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1971 OK CR 318 (Dunn 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

Dunn v. State, 1971 OK CR 318, 488 P.2d 606 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

Jim Lee Dunn, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County to the offense for Burglary in the Second Degree; his punishment was fixed at three years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We have consistently held that where an appeal is taken by an accused from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty, the appeal will ordinarily present only such questions as go to the free and voluntary character of the plea, or that accused was not of competent intelligence, or was not advised of his legal rights and the nature and consequences of his plea, or as to the sufficiency of the indictment or information to confer jurisdiction, or the legality of the sentence. Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 462 P.2d 289.

The Record in the instant case reveals that the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject matter, and authority under law, to pronounce the judgment and sentence imposed, and it affirmatively ap *607 pears that the defendant knowingly and intelligently entered a plea of guilty after conferring with counsel, with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of such plea.

The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

Jim Lee Dunn, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County to the offense for Burglary in the Second Degree; his punishment was fixed at three years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We have consistently held that where an appeal is taken by an accused from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty, the appeal will ordinarily present only such questions as go to the free and voluntary character of the plea, or that accused was not of competent intelligence, or was not advised of his legal rights and the nature and consequences of his plea, or as to the sufficiency of the indictment or information to confer jurisdiction, or the legality of the sentence. Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 462 P.2d 289.

The Record in the instant case reveals that the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject matter, and authority under law, to pronounce the judgment and sentence imposed, and it affirmatively ap *607 pears that the defendant knowingly and intelligently entered a plea of guilty after conferring with counsel, with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of such plea.

The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 318, 488 P.2d 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack