Faust v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Faust v. State

1954 OK CR 77, 272 P.2d 489, 1954 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 162

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 9, 1954

DocketNo. A-12008

StatusPublished

This text of 1954 OK CR 77 (Faust 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

Faust v. State, 1954 OK CR 77, 272 P.2d 489, 1954 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 162 (Okla. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error Dave Washington Faust, defendant below, was charged by information in the county court of Pittsburg county, Oklahoma, with having committed the offense of operating a motor vehicle, to wit, a 1948 Chevrolet automobile, upon U. S. Highway 270 at a point 8 miles east of McAlester, Pittsburg county, Oklahoma, contrary to Title 47 O.S.1951 § 93. The offense was allegedly committed on or about the 9th day of February 1953 in the aforesaid county and state. He was tried by a jury, convicted, his punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and 90 days in jail; judgment and sentence was entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been taken.

The evidence in support of the conviction is to the effect that he drove his automobile in a weaving manner down the highway from the right to the left side of the highway, had a strong smell of intoxicating liquor upon his person and was wobbly upon his feet. The evidence further shows that when he got out of the automobile he fell against the side of his car. The evidence clearly supports the conviction. An examination of the pleadings, instructions and judgment discloses no material error. The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed under the authority of Whitlow v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.

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

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error Dave Washington Faust, defendant below, was charged by information in the county court of Pittsburg county, Oklahoma, with having committed the offense of operating a motor vehicle, to wit, a 1948 Chevrolet automobile, upon U. S. Highway 270 at a point 8 miles east of McAlester, Pittsburg county, Oklahoma, contrary to Title 47 O.S.1951 § 93. The offense was allegedly committed on or about the 9th day of February 1953 in the aforesaid county and state. He was tried by a jury, convicted, his punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and 90 days in jail; judgment and sentence was entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been taken.

The evidence in support of the conviction is to the effect that he drove his automobile in a weaving manner down the highway from the right to the left side of the highway, had a strong smell of intoxicating liquor upon his person and was wobbly upon his feet. The evidence further shows that when he got out of the automobile he fell against the side of his car. The evidence clearly supports the conviction. An examination of the pleadings, instructions and judgment discloses no material error. The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed under the authority of Whitlow v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1954 OK CR 77, 272 P.2d 489, 1954 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faust-v-state-oklacrimapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack