Hays v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hays v. State

1916 OK CR 1, 146 P. 1085, 11 Okla. Crim. 410, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 27

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 20, 1915

DocketNo. A-2213.

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK CR 1 (Hays 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

Hays v. State, 1916 OK CR 1, 146 P. 1085, 11 Okla. Crim. 410, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 27 (Okla. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P- J.

Plaintiff in error and Charley Arthur were jointly charged by information with the larceny of eleven hogs, the personal property of one R. N. Robersan. A severance was granted, and, upon his separate trial, the plaintiff in error was convicted and his punishment fixed at a term of two years in the penitentiary. On the 19th day of September, 1913, judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict. An appeal was perfected by filing in this court on March 16, 1914, a petition in error with case-made. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made for plaintiff in error when the case was called for final submission. The Attorney General has filed a motion to áffirm for failure to prosecute the appeal.

We have carefully examined the information, and the instructions of the court, to which no exceptions were taken, and the judgment, and, finding no error, the motion to affirm will be sustained. The judgment herein is therefore affirmed.

EURMAN and ARMSTRONG, JJ., concur.

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

DOYLE, P- J.

Plaintiff in error and Charley Arthur were jointly charged by information with the larceny of eleven hogs, the personal property of one R. N. Robersan. A severance was granted, and, upon his separate trial, the plaintiff in error was convicted and his punishment fixed at a term of two years in the penitentiary. On the 19th day of September, 1913, judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict. An appeal was perfected by filing in this court on March 16, 1914, a petition in error with case-made. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made for plaintiff in error when the case was called for final submission. The Attorney General has filed a motion to áffirm for failure to prosecute the appeal.

We have carefully examined the information, and the instructions of the court, to which no exceptions were taken, and the judgment, and, finding no error, the motion to affirm will be sustained. The judgment herein is therefore affirmed.

EURMAN and ARMSTRONG, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK CR 1, 146 P. 1085, 11 Okla. Crim. 410, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-state-oklacrimapp-1915.