Holmes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Holmes v. State

1918 OK CR 210, 168 P. 246, 35 Okla. Crim. 399, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 212

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 5, 1918

DocketNo. A-2279.

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK CR 210 (Holmes 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

Holmes v. State, 1918 OK CR 210, 168 P. 246, 35 Okla. Crim. 399, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 212 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Thomas Holmes, was convicted at the March, 1914, term of the county court of Canadian county, on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 90 days. •

Numerous errors were assigned and argued before the court in oral argument and upon brief. Upon the oral argument it was conceded by the Assistant Attorney General that many irregularities occurred at the trial, and that the judgment imposed by the trial court was excessive, and that this judgment should be either reversed or modified, and insisted that the court modify the judgment, rather *400 than reverse it. A modification was agreed to by counsel for plaintiff in error.

Upon a careful consideration of the briefs and argument and a thorough examination of the record, we are impelled to the conclusion that the judgment should be modified to a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days, and as modified, affirmed.

It is so ordered. Mandate directed to issue forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Thomas Holmes, was convicted at the March, 1914, term of the county court of Canadian county, on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 90 days. •

Numerous errors were assigned and argued before the court in oral argument and upon brief. Upon the oral argument it was conceded by the Assistant Attorney General that many irregularities occurred at the trial, and that the judgment imposed by the trial court was excessive, and that this judgment should be either reversed or modified, and insisted that the court modify the judgment, rather *400 than reverse it. A modification was agreed to by counsel for plaintiff in error.

Upon a careful consideration of the briefs and argument and a thorough examination of the record, we are impelled to the conclusion that the judgment should be modified to a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days, and as modified, affirmed.

It is so ordered. Mandate directed to issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK CR 210, 168 P. 246, 35 Okla. Crim. 399, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.