Hays v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hays v. State

1923 OK CR 171, 215 P. 960, 24 Okla. Crim. 70, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hays v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Okla. Crim. 99 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided June 23, 1923·No. No. A-4310.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Jess Hays, was tried and convicted on an information filed in the county court of Pontotoc county, charging that on the 27th day of November, 1920, he committed the offense of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell, barter, give away, .and otherwise dispose of the same, in violation of the prohibitory laws of the state. By a verdict of a jury he was found guilty as charged on January 2, 1922, and his punishment was fixed at 60 days in jail and a fine of $250.

*71 The plaintiff in error has filed no brief, and no appearance has been made in behalf of plaintiff in error in this case at or subsequent to its submission. We may therefore assume that he has abandoned his appeal. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal.

This motion is sustained, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Jess Hays, was tried and convicted on an information filed in the county court of Pontotoc county, charging that on the 27th day of November, 1920, he committed the offense of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell, barter, give away, .and otherwise dispose of the same, in violation of the prohibitory laws of the state. By a verdict of a jury he was found guilty as charged on January 2, 1922, and his punishment was fixed at 60 days in jail and a fine of $250.

*71 The plaintiff in error has filed no brief, and no appearance has been made in behalf of plaintiff in error in this case at or subsequent to its submission. We may therefore assume that he has abandoned his appeal. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal.

This motion is sustained, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Hays v. State, 1923 OK CR 171, 215 P. 960, 24 Okla. Crim. 70, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

1923 OK CR 171 (Hays v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.