Jones v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Jones v. State

1926 OK CR 92, 244 P. 57, 33 Okla. Crim. 350, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 13, 1926

DocketNo. A-5409.

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK CR 92 (Jones 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

Jones v. State, 1926 OK CR 92, 244 P. 57, 33 Okla. Crim. 350, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

, Plaintiff in error, Alva Jones, was convicted on an information which charged that in Custer county, February 15, 1924, he did transport about a quart of whisky from a place unknown in said county to the Haw*k Hotel, in the city of Clinton, and, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to be confined in the county jail for 30 days. He has appealed from the judgment, and assigns as error that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made in his behalf in this court.

We have examined the record and find ample evidence to support the verdict. The defendant did not testify.

*351 Finding no prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

, Plaintiff in error, Alva Jones, was convicted on an information which charged that in Custer county, February 15, 1924, he did transport about a quart of whisky from a place unknown in said county to the Haw*k Hotel, in the city of Clinton, and, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to be confined in the county jail for 30 days. He has appealed from the judgment, and assigns as error that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made in his behalf in this court.

We have examined the record and find ample evidence to support the verdict. The defendant did not testify.

*351 Finding no prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK CR 92, 244 P. 57, 33 Okla. Crim. 350, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.