Ingram v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ingram v. State

1937 OK CR 142, 71 P.2d 646, 62 Okla. Crim. 344, 1937 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 134

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 10, 1937

DocketNo. A-9231.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1937 OK CR 142 (Ingram 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

Ingram v. State, 1937 OK CR 142, 71 P.2d 646, 62 Okla. Crim. 344, 1937 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 134 (Okla. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPOBT, P. J.

In the information in this case, Cleo Ingram was charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree, alleged to have been committed in Seminole county on the 12th day of October, 1935. He was tried and found guilty by the jury and his punish *345 ment assessed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two year's. From the judgment of the court, rendered in pursuance of the verdict, on the 19th day of May, 1936, an appeal was taken by filing in this court on November 17, 1936, a petition in error with case-made.

There has been presented to this court legal authority showing that the plaintiff in error has been granted a parole on August 9, 1937; that the said parole was signed and accepted on the 25th day of August, 1937, and filed1 in the Secretary of State’s office on August 30, 1937.

Where a plaintiff in error accepts a parole pending the determination of his appeal, he thereby waives the right to have his appeal determined, and, when the attention of this court shall be called judicially to the fact that a parole has been granted and accepted, his appeal will be dismissed. Baxter v. State, 24 Okla. Cr. 41, 215 Pac. 639.

It is therefore adjudged and ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Seminole county.

DOYLE and BAREFOOT, JJ., concur.

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

DAVENPOBT, P. J.

In the information in this case, Cleo Ingram was charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree, alleged to have been committed in Seminole county on the 12th day of October, 1935. He was tried and found guilty by the jury and his punish *345 ment assessed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two year's. From the judgment of the court, rendered in pursuance of the verdict, on the 19th day of May, 1936, an appeal was taken by filing in this court on November 17, 1936, a petition in error with case-made.

There has been presented to this court legal authority showing that the plaintiff in error has been granted a parole on August 9, 1937; that the said parole was signed and accepted on the 25th day of August, 1937, and filed1 in the Secretary of State’s office on August 30, 1937.

Where a plaintiff in error accepts a parole pending the determination of his appeal, he thereby waives the right to have his appeal determined, and, when the attention of this court shall be called judicially to the fact that a parole has been granted and accepted, his appeal will be dismissed. Baxter v. State, 24 Okla. Cr. 41, 215 Pac. 639.

It is therefore adjudged and ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Seminole county.

DOYLE and BAREFOOT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1937 OK CR 142, 71 P.2d 646, 62 Okla. Crim. 344, 1937 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-state-oklacrimapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack