Hunsucker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hunsucker v. State

1930 OK CR 224, 288 P. 396, 47 Okla. Crim. 429, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 374

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 17, 1930

DocketNo. A-7441.

StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK CR 224 (Hunsucker 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

Hunsucker v. State, 1930 OK CR 224, 288 P. 396, 47 Okla. Crim. 429, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 374 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors, to wit, 40 pints of beer, the same containing more than one-half of one per cent, of alcohol measured by volume and capable of being used as a beverage, with the unlawful intent to sell, barter, give away, and otherwise furnish the same to others, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 180 days; from which judgment and sentence the defendant appealed to this court.

The sentence was imposed upon the defendant on the 30th day of March, 1929; petition in error and case-made was filed in this court on the 20th day of June, 1929. No brief has been filed in support of the errors assigned, nor has there been any personal appearance or argument submitted in support of the assignments.

*430 Tbe record has been carefully examined in tbis case, and we find tbe information was sufficient to charge an offense; that tbe testimony is sufficient to show tbe defendant guilty. Tbe defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

Where no1 brief is filed, and no personal appearance made, tbe court presumes that the appeal is without merit or has been abandoned. No fundamental or prejudicial errors appearing in tbe record, tbe judgment of tbe trial court is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors, to wit, 40 pints of beer, the same containing more than one-half of one per cent, of alcohol measured by volume and capable of being used as a beverage, with the unlawful intent to sell, barter, give away, and otherwise furnish the same to others, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 180 days; from which judgment and sentence the defendant appealed to this court.

The sentence was imposed upon the defendant on the 30th day of March, 1929; petition in error and case-made was filed in this court on the 20th day of June, 1929. No brief has been filed in support of the errors assigned, nor has there been any personal appearance or argument submitted in support of the assignments.

*430 Tbe record has been carefully examined in tbis case, and we find tbe information was sufficient to charge an offense; that tbe testimony is sufficient to show tbe defendant guilty. Tbe defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

Where no1 brief is filed, and no personal appearance made, tbe court presumes that the appeal is without merit or has been abandoned. No fundamental or prejudicial errors appearing in tbe record, tbe judgment of tbe trial court is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK CR 224, 288 P. 396, 47 Okla. Crim. 429, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunsucker-v-state-oklacrimapp-1930.