Elliott v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Elliott v. State

1914 OK CR 163, 140 P. 294, 11 Okla. Crim. 659, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 58

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 16, 1914

DocketNo. A-2047.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 163 (Elliott 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

Elliott v. State, 1914 OK CR 163, 140 P. 294, 11 Okla. Crim. 659, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 58 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error were jointly informed against by the county attorney of Grady county for the offense of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquors in said county. The jury assessed the punishment of G. L. Elliott at sixty days confinement in the county jail, and one hundred dollars fine, and Carsie Elliott at thirty days confinement in the county jail and fifty dollars fine. From judgments entered in accordance with the verdict, the defendants appeal. The Attorney General has filed a motion to strke the case-made, and for grounds of said motion shows::

*660 “That the attempted appeal is from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor, to-wit: for violation of the prohibitory law; that the judgment was rendered on the 12th day of April, 1913, at which time the court made an order allowing plaintiff in error sixty days in which to prepare and serve a case-made, and allowed ninety days from said date in which to file a petition in error in this court; that thereafter on the 12th day of June the court purported to make an order extending the time heretofore allowed, but that the court was without jurisdiction to make the said order in that the original sixty days had expired.”

Thus it appears that the order extending the time for serving the ease-made was made on the 61st day after the judgment was rendered. Under the statute the trial court in a misdemeanor case has no authority to extend the time after the expiration of sixty days from the day judgment was rendered. The motion to strike the case-made must therefore be sustained. There is no question of law presented upon the transcript for the determination of this court. The judgments of conviction will, therefore be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error were jointly informed against by the county attorney of Grady county for the offense of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquors in said county. The jury assessed the punishment of G. L. Elliott at sixty days confinement in the county jail, and one hundred dollars fine, and Carsie Elliott at thirty days confinement in the county jail and fifty dollars fine. From judgments entered in accordance with the verdict, the defendants appeal. The Attorney General has filed a motion to strke the case-made, and for grounds of said motion shows::

*660 “That the attempted appeal is from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor, to-wit: for violation of the prohibitory law; that the judgment was rendered on the 12th day of April, 1913, at which time the court made an order allowing plaintiff in error sixty days in which to prepare and serve a case-made, and allowed ninety days from said date in which to file a petition in error in this court; that thereafter on the 12th day of June the court purported to make an order extending the time heretofore allowed, but that the court was without jurisdiction to make the said order in that the original sixty days had expired.”

Thus it appears that the order extending the time for serving the ease-made was made on the 61st day after the judgment was rendered. Under the statute the trial court in a misdemeanor case has no authority to extend the time after the expiration of sixty days from the day judgment was rendered. The motion to strike the case-made must therefore be sustained. There is no question of law presented upon the transcript for the determination of this court. The judgments of conviction will, therefore be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 163, 140 P. 294, 11 Okla. Crim. 659, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.