Harvick v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Harvick v. State

1928 OK CR 21, 262 P. 1118, 39 Okla. Crim. 28, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 234

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 14, 1928

DocketNo. A-6152.

StatusPublished

This text of 1928 OK CR 21 (Harvick 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

Harvick v. State, 1928 OK CR 21, 262 P. 1118, 39 Okla. Crim. 28, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 234 (Okla. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Jackson county on a charge of hav *29 ing the possession of intoxicating liquor with the intention of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve 60 days in the county jail. Judgment was rendered in February, 1926, and the appeal was lodged in this court in April, 1926. No brief in support of the appeal has been filed, and no appearance for oral argument made at the time the case was submitted. We have examined the record for jurisdictional errors, and have examined the record carefully. The evidence reasonably supports the judgment, and no fundamental error is apparent. The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Jackson county on a charge of hav *29 ing the possession of intoxicating liquor with the intention of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve 60 days in the county jail. Judgment was rendered in February, 1926, and the appeal was lodged in this court in April, 1926. No brief in support of the appeal has been filed, and no appearance for oral argument made at the time the case was submitted. We have examined the record for jurisdictional errors, and have examined the record carefully. The evidence reasonably supports the judgment, and no fundamental error is apparent. The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK CR 21, 262 P. 1118, 39 Okla. Crim. 28, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvick-v-state-oklacrimapp-1928.