Ernst v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ernst v. State

1920 OK CR 51, 187 P. 930, 17 Okla. Crim. 282, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 52

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided March 9, 1920·No. No. A-3322.·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

DOYiLE, P. J.

Plaintiff in error, J. E. Ernst, was convicted of a violation of section 15, c. 22, Session Laws 1918. *283 The information in substance charges that as president of the 'Citizens’ Bank of Headrick he made a certain report to the Bank Commissioner as to the financial condition of said bank, and that he willfully, unlawfully, falsely, and fraudulently made a certain statement and entry in said report, which was then and there known by him to be false and untrue, and by said false and fraudulent statement and entry in said report then and there so made by him he unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously intended to deceive the Bank Commissioner.. The sentence was for confinement in the penitentiary for one year and a fine of $100 and costs. He appealed by filing in this court on April 20, 1918, a petition in error with case-made.

This is a companion case to that of Ernst v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 507, 184 Pac. 793. While his appeal was pending and awaiting decision before this court, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pending in this case for the reason that a parole was granted in the case, as shown by the attached statement of Joe S. Morris, Secretary of State, in part as follows:

“On the 19th day of January, 1920, J. E. Ernst was issued a parole by J. B. A. Robertson, Governor of the state of Oklahoma. The same was filed in the office of the Secretary of State on the 22d day of January, 1920.” „

The uniform holding of this court is that when a parole is granted by the Governor and accepted by the plaintiff in error, and the matter is judicially called to the attention of this court pending the determination of an appeal, the appeal will bé dismissed.

It follows that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well founded. It is therefore considered and adjudged that the *284 appeal herein be dismissed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Jackson county.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON JJ., concur.

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

DOYiLE, P. J.

Plaintiff in error, J. E. Ernst, was convicted of a violation of section 15, c. 22, Session Laws 1918. *283 The information in substance charges that as president of the 'Citizens’ Bank of Headrick he made a certain report to the Bank Commissioner as to the financial condition of said bank, and that he willfully, unlawfully, falsely, and fraudulently made a certain statement and entry in said report, which was then and there known by him to be false and untrue, and by said false and fraudulent statement and entry in said report then and there so made by him he unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously intended to deceive the Bank Commissioner.. The sentence was for confinement in the penitentiary for one year and a fine of $100 and costs. He appealed by filing in this court on April 20, 1918, a petition in error with case-made.

This is a companion case to that of Ernst v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 507, 184 Pac. 793. While his appeal was pending and awaiting decision before this court, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pending in this case for the reason that a parole was granted in the case, as shown by the attached statement of Joe S. Morris, Secretary of State, in part as follows:

“On the 19th day of January, 1920, J. E. Ernst was issued a parole by J. B. A. Robertson, Governor of the state of Oklahoma. The same was filed in the office of the Secretary of State on the 22d day of January, 1920.” „

The uniform holding of this court is that when a parole is granted by the Governor and accepted by the plaintiff in error, and the matter is judicially called to the attention of this court pending the determination of an appeal, the appeal will bé dismissed.

It follows that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well founded. It is therefore considered and adjudged that the *284 appeal herein be dismissed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Jackson county.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON JJ., concur.

Ernst v. State, 1920 OK CR 51, 187 P. 930, 17 Okla. Crim. 282, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 52 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

1920 OK CR 51 (Ernst v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related