Kinder v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Kinder v. State

1968 OK CR 49, 438 P.2d 302, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 290

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 28, 1968

DocketNo. A-14500

StatusPublished

This text of 1968 OK CR 49 (Kinder 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

Kinder v. State, 1968 OK CR 49, 438 P.2d 302, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 290 (Okla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

BRETT, Judge:

James Kinder was charged in the district court of Tulsa County with knowingly receiving stolen property. A jury was waived and the case tried to the court, on March 22, 1967. The defendant was by the court found guilty and sentenced to serve • one year in the county jail of Tulsa County.

Appeal was filed in this Court on November 3, 1967, and appellant had thirty days thereafter in which to file a brief in support of his appeal. No brief having been filed, and no extension of time requested within which to file brief, the Court assumed that the appeal was abandoned, and accordingly, on December 28, 1967 the case was summarily submitted on the record for an opinion. Gaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 284 P.2d 436; Dale v. State, Okl.Cr., 386 P.2d 334; Kelsey v. State, Okl.Cr., 400 P.2d 574; Ross v. State, Okl.Cr., 410 P.2d 565.

The appellant filed a certified transcript of the evidence offered, and all proceedings had at and prior to the trial. Attached thereto is what counsel styles “Petition on Appeal”, in which he states: “the record in this case could not and was -not completed as a casemade, but it does show a full and complete transcript of the. record in this cause and this petitioner in error therefore appeals this cause on a transcript of the record * *

' The defendant having waived a jury, the case was submitted to the court, who found the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge, and- accordingly pronounced judgment and sentence. This Court has often held that where a jury is waived, and the case tried to the court, his findings, as to the guilt of the defendant, will- not be reversed where there is any competent evidence in the record, together with reasonable inferences and deductions, to be drawn therefrom supporting the- court’s findings. Crim v. State, 68.Okl.Cr. 390, 99 P.2d 185; McCarthy v. State, 91 Okl.Cr. 294, 218 P.2d 397; White v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 392, 246 P.2d 420.

This Court has repeatedly held that the consideration of an appeal by tran[304]*304script is limited to a consideration of the errors appearing on the face of the record. In the case at bar, having a transcript of the evidence before us, we have examined the same, and find that the information is sufficient to charge the offense of knowingly receiving stolen property; the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence of the trial court, and the judgment and sentence is in proper form.

Herein we have discovered no error which would warrant a reversal of the judgment, and it appears that the defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

The judgment and sentence of the district court of Tulsa County is affirmed.

BUSSEY, J., concurs.

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

BRETT, Judge:

James Kinder was charged in the district court of Tulsa County with knowingly receiving stolen property. A jury was waived and the case tried to the court, on March 22, 1967. The defendant was by the court found guilty and sentenced to serve • one year in the county jail of Tulsa County.

Appeal was filed in this Court on November 3, 1967, and appellant had thirty days thereafter in which to file a brief in support of his appeal. No brief having been filed, and no extension of time requested within which to file brief, the Court assumed that the appeal was abandoned, and accordingly, on December 28, 1967 the case was summarily submitted on the record for an opinion. Gaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 284 P.2d 436; Dale v. State, Okl.Cr., 386 P.2d 334; Kelsey v. State, Okl.Cr., 400 P.2d 574; Ross v. State, Okl.Cr., 410 P.2d 565.

The appellant filed a certified transcript of the evidence offered, and all proceedings had at and prior to the trial. Attached thereto is what counsel styles “Petition on Appeal”, in which he states: “the record in this case could not and was -not completed as a casemade, but it does show a full and complete transcript of the. record in this cause and this petitioner in error therefore appeals this cause on a transcript of the record * *

' The defendant having waived a jury, the case was submitted to the court, who found the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge, and- accordingly pronounced judgment and sentence. This Court has often held that where a jury is waived, and the case tried to the court, his findings, as to the guilt of the defendant, will- not be reversed where there is any competent evidence in the record, together with reasonable inferences and deductions, to be drawn therefrom supporting the- court’s findings. Crim v. State, 68.Okl.Cr. 390, 99 P.2d 185; McCarthy v. State, 91 Okl.Cr. 294, 218 P.2d 397; White v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 392, 246 P.2d 420.

This Court has repeatedly held that the consideration of an appeal by tran[304]*304script is limited to a consideration of the errors appearing on the face of the record. In the case at bar, having a transcript of the evidence before us, we have examined the same, and find that the information is sufficient to charge the offense of knowingly receiving stolen property; the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence of the trial court, and the judgment and sentence is in proper form.

Herein we have discovered no error which would warrant a reversal of the judgment, and it appears that the defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

The judgment and sentence of the district court of Tulsa County is affirmed.

BUSSEY, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1968 OK CR 49, 438 P.2d 302, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinder-v-state-oklacrimapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack