Hallmark v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hallmark v. State

1925 OK CR 399, 238 P. 221, 31 Okla. Crim. 258, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 361

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 23, 1925

DocketNo. A-4997.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 399 (Hallmark 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

Hallmark v. State, 1925 OK CR 399, 238 P. 221, 31 Okla. Crim. 258, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 361 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, E. A. Hallmark, by verdict of a jury was found guilty of the illegal transportation of whisky, with his punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and confinement in the county jail for a *259 period of six months. After the overruling of a motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict.

This case was regularly submitted at the March, 1925, term of this court, at which' time no briefs had been filed in accordance with the rules of this court. At the time of submission further time was given to file briefs, but no briefs have since been filed. From this we assume that the plaintiff in error has abandoned the appeal. An exam-, ination of the record discloses that plaintiff in error was apprehended by police officers in the act of transporting whisky, that the evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict, and that the information and the instructions of the court are correct.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, E. A. Hallmark, by verdict of a jury was found guilty of the illegal transportation of whisky, with his punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and confinement in the county jail for a *259 period of six months. After the overruling of a motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict.

This case was regularly submitted at the March, 1925, term of this court, at which' time no briefs had been filed in accordance with the rules of this court. At the time of submission further time was given to file briefs, but no briefs have since been filed. From this we assume that the plaintiff in error has abandoned the appeal. An exam-, ination of the record discloses that plaintiff in error was apprehended by police officers in the act of transporting whisky, that the evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict, and that the information and the instructions of the court are correct.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 399, 238 P. 221, 31 Okla. Crim. 258, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallmark-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.