Hancock v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hancock v. State

1935 OK CR 105, 48 P.2d 348, 57 Okla. Crim. 329, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 68

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 5, 1935

DocketNo. A-8881.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1935 OK CR 105 (Hancock 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

Hancock v. State, 1935 OK CR 105, 48 P.2d 348, 57 Okla. Crim. 329, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 68 (Okla. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error, Calvin Hancock, was tried and convicted in the district court of Caddo county upon an information charging that on April 9, 1934, he committed the crime of second-degree burglary, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was on September 24, 1934, by the judgment of the court sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two- years. An appeal was duly filed in this court on March 25, 1935. On July 18, 1935, he filed his motion to dismiss the appeal, which, omitting title, is as follows:

“Now comes the plaintiff in error by his attorneys, Morris & Wilhite, and moves the court to< dismiss the appeal in the above entitled cause for the following reasons, to wit:

“That the plaintiff in error has abandoned said appeal, has surrendered himself to the authorities at the state reformatory at Oranite, Okla., and is no w serving his sentence.”

An appeal may be taken to this court by a defendant ■as a matter of constitutional right from any judgment rendered against him in a court of record. It is a privilege *331 granted by the law to persons convicted of crime which they may exercise at their option.

When an appeal' has been taken, unless good canse is shown to the contrary, this court has uniformly permitted the plaintiff in error to dismiss his appeal at his election. Huber v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 209, 163 Pac. 329.

In the case at bar, there is no reason made to appear why the dismissal should not be ordered in compliance with the motion of the plaintiff in error.

It is therefore adjudged and ordered that the appeal he dismissed and the cause remanded to the district court of Oaddo county. The clerk of said court is directed to spread the mandate and to issue forthwith to the sheriff of said county commitment in accordance with the judgment of said court pronounced and entered on the verdict of the jury.

EDWARDS, J., concurs. DAVENPORT, P. J., absent.

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

DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error, Calvin Hancock, was tried and convicted in the district court of Caddo county upon an information charging that on April 9, 1934, he committed the crime of second-degree burglary, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was on September 24, 1934, by the judgment of the court sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two- years. An appeal was duly filed in this court on March 25, 1935. On July 18, 1935, he filed his motion to dismiss the appeal, which, omitting title, is as follows:

“Now comes the plaintiff in error by his attorneys, Morris & Wilhite, and moves the court to< dismiss the appeal in the above entitled cause for the following reasons, to wit:

“That the plaintiff in error has abandoned said appeal, has surrendered himself to the authorities at the state reformatory at Oranite, Okla., and is no w serving his sentence.”

An appeal may be taken to this court by a defendant ■as a matter of constitutional right from any judgment rendered against him in a court of record. It is a privilege *331 granted by the law to persons convicted of crime which they may exercise at their option.

When an appeal' has been taken, unless good canse is shown to the contrary, this court has uniformly permitted the plaintiff in error to dismiss his appeal at his election. Huber v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 209, 163 Pac. 329.

In the case at bar, there is no reason made to appear why the dismissal should not be ordered in compliance with the motion of the plaintiff in error.

It is therefore adjudged and ordered that the appeal he dismissed and the cause remanded to the district court of Oaddo county. The clerk of said court is directed to spread the mandate and to issue forthwith to the sheriff of said county commitment in accordance with the judgment of said court pronounced and entered on the verdict of the jury.

EDWARDS, J., concurs. DAVENPORT, P. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK CR 105, 48 P.2d 348, 57 Okla. Crim. 329, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-v-state-oklacrimapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack