Hartzell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hartzell v. State

1923 OK CR 163, 215 P. 1118, 24 Okla. Crim. 54, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 263

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 16, 1923

DocketNo. A-4209.

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK CR 163 (Hartzell 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

Hartzell v. State, 1923 OK CR 163, 215 P. 1118, 24 Okla. Crim. 54, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 263 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Payne county of the offense of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days. Judgment was rendered on the 15th day of December, 1921, and petition in error and ease-made were filed in this court on the 14th day of February, 1922. No brief has been filed in behalf of plaintiff in error, and no appearance was made to orally argue the cause at the time same was submitted. Rule 9 (12 Okl. Cr. viii, 165 Pac. x) of this court provides: “When no counsel appears, and no briefs are filed, the court will examine the pleadings, the instructions of the court and the exceptions taken thereto, and the judgment and sentence, and if no prejudicial error appears, will affirm the judgment.” After an examination of the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the judgment and sentence, the court finds that no prejudicial error occurred sufficient to authorize a reversal of this judgment, and the same is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Payne county of the offense of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days. Judgment was rendered on the 15th day of December, 1921, and petition in error and ease-made were filed in this court on the 14th day of February, 1922. No brief has been filed in behalf of plaintiff in error, and no appearance was made to orally argue the cause at the time same was submitted. Rule 9 (12 Okl. Cr. viii, 165 Pac. x) of this court provides: “When no counsel appears, and no briefs are filed, the court will examine the pleadings, the instructions of the court and the exceptions taken thereto, and the judgment and sentence, and if no prejudicial error appears, will affirm the judgment.” After an examination of the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the judgment and sentence, the court finds that no prejudicial error occurred sufficient to authorize a reversal of this judgment, and the same is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK CR 163, 215 P. 1118, 24 Okla. Crim. 54, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartzell-v-state-oklacrimapp-1923.