Hendricks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hendricks v. State

1972 OK CR 123, 497 P.2d 425

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 3, 1972

DocketA-16756

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1972 OK CR 123 (Hendricks 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

Hendricks v. State, 1972 OK CR 123, 497 P.2d 425 (Okla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Scot Hendricks, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged and tried in the District Court of Jackson County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Murder; he was [426]*426found guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree; his punishment was fixed at four (4) years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, an appeal has been perfected to this Court. This cause was lodged in this Court on June 25, 1971. Defendant’s brief was due to be filed by June 29, 1971; however, upon defendant’s request, defendant was granted an extension of time in which to file his brief until October 1, 1971. No brief was filed, nor was an extension of time in which to file a brief requested thereafter. On December 9, 1971, by Order of this Court, the cause was summarily submitted for opinion in accordance with the rules of this Court.

We have consistently held that where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, and no briefs are filed in support of the petition in error, this Court will examine the Records only for fundamental error. If none appears on record, the judgment will be affirmed. Enoch v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 444 P.2d 856.

We have carefully examined the record and reviewed the testimony and petition in error in the instant case and find no fundamental error. The record discloses that defendant was afforded a fair and impartial trial and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. There being no apparent error in the record on appeal, it is the opinion of this Court that the judgment and sentence should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Scot Hendricks, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged and tried in the District Court of Jackson County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Murder; he was [426]*426found guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree; his punishment was fixed at four (4) years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, an appeal has been perfected to this Court. This cause was lodged in this Court on June 25, 1971. Defendant’s brief was due to be filed by June 29, 1971; however, upon defendant’s request, defendant was granted an extension of time in which to file his brief until October 1, 1971. No brief was filed, nor was an extension of time in which to file a brief requested thereafter. On December 9, 1971, by Order of this Court, the cause was summarily submitted for opinion in accordance with the rules of this Court.

We have consistently held that where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, and no briefs are filed in support of the petition in error, this Court will examine the Records only for fundamental error. If none appears on record, the judgment will be affirmed. Enoch v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 444 P.2d 856.

We have carefully examined the record and reviewed the testimony and petition in error in the instant case and find no fundamental error. The record discloses that defendant was afforded a fair and impartial trial and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. There being no apparent error in the record on appeal, it is the opinion of this Court that the judgment and sentence should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1972 OK CR 123, 497 P.2d 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendricks-v-state-oklacrimapp-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack