Lucino v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Lucino v. State

1920 OK CR 52, 187 P. 251, 17 Okla. Crim. 706, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 37

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 13, 1920

DocketNo. A-3723.

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 52 (Lucino 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

Lucino v. State, 1920 OK CR 52, 187 P. 251, 17 Okla. Crim. 706, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 37 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Francisco Lucino, was convicted on an information charging that in AVasliington county on or about the 25th day of October, 1919, he did have possession of certain intoxicating liquors, to wit, 50 gallons of Choctaw beer, containing more than one-lialf of one per cent, of alcohol, measured by volumn, and capable of being used as a beverage, with the unlawful intent to sell the same, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined for (it) days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50.

From the judgment an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on March 20, 1920, a, petition in error with case-made. Plaintiff in error by his counsel of record has filed a motion to dismiss said appeal, which motion is sustained. It is therefore ordered that said appeal be and ihe same is hereby dismissed and the cause remanded to the tidal court with direction to cause its judgment and sentence to be carried into execution. Mandate forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Francisco Lucino, was convicted on an information charging that in AVasliington county on or about the 25th day of October, 1919, he did have possession of certain intoxicating liquors, to wit, 50 gallons of Choctaw beer, containing more than one-lialf of one per cent, of alcohol, measured by volumn, and capable of being used as a beverage, with the unlawful intent to sell the same, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined for (it) days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50.

From the judgment an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on March 20, 1920, a, petition in error with case-made. Plaintiff in error by his counsel of record has filed a motion to dismiss said appeal, which motion is sustained. It is therefore ordered that said appeal be and ihe same is hereby dismissed and the cause remanded to the tidal court with direction to cause its judgment and sentence to be carried into execution. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 52, 187 P. 251, 17 Okla. Crim. 706, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucino-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.