Garbey v. State

1964 OK CR 119, 397 P.2d 523, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 242
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 9, 1964
DocketA-13549
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 1964 OK CR 119 (Garbey 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
Garbey v. State, 1964 OK CR 119, 397 P.2d 523, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 242 (Okla. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

BUSSEY, Judge.

Sidney Sam Edward Garbey was charged in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa by Information with the offense of Sale of Beer to Minors in violation of Title 37 O.S. § 241 and was tried by jury, found guilty and his punishment was fixed at ninety days in the county jail and a fine of $300.00.

A timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We feel this is a case where it is unnecessary to recite the evidence or the law but that in order to speed up the disposition of the many cases pending on appeal, the case should properly be disposed of by memorandum opinion, as authorized by the Legislature, 20 O.S.(1951) § 47, as amended 1953; for as was said in Nichols v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 414, 264 P.2d 366:

“In a misdemeanor case, where a careful reading of the briefs of the appellant and the State, as well as a careful examination of the record or casemade, discloses no reversible error, and where there is ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury (or judgment of the court in absence of the jury), and judgment rendered, this court may affirm such judgment by summary order, or brief statement, or by opinion of length, as the court may see fit. Tit. 20 O.S.1951 § 47, as amended by S.B. 450, § 2, 1953 Legislature.”

We have carefully examined the record and excellent briefs of counsel and are of the opinion that the evidence, though conflicting, supports the findings of the jury, and that the record is free from fundamental error. We are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.

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

Related

McGriff v. Oklahoma City
1969 OK CR 81 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1969)
Meade v. Oklahoma City
1967 OK CR 158 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1967)
Oliver v. State
1967 OK CR 135 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1967)
Blaylock v. State
1967 OK CR 138 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1964 OK CR 119, 397 P.2d 523, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garbey-v-state-oklacrimapp-1964.