Lutke v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Lutke v. State

1927 OK CR 136, 255 P. 719, 37 Okla. Crim. 18, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 30, 1927

DocketNo. A-5739.

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 1927 OK CR 136 (Lutke 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

Lutke v. State, 1927 OK CR 136, 255 P. 719, 37 Okla. Crim. 18, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 (Okla. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted in the county court of Seminole county on a charge of having the possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the prohibitory liquor law, and was sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50.

The judgment was rendered on April 15, 1925, and the appeal was lodged in this court on August 13, following. The record discloses that notice of appeal was served on the county attorney only. It shows no service of notice on the court clerk, as required by section 2809, Comp. Stat. 1921. It does not show the issuance of any summons in error, nor the waiver of such by the Attorney General. This court does not acquire jurisdiction of the appeal. Burgess v. State, 18 Okla. Cr. 574, 197 P. 173, and authorities cited.

For the reasons assigned, the attempted appeal is dismissed.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted in the county court of Seminole county on a charge of having the possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the prohibitory liquor law, and was sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50.

The judgment was rendered on April 15, 1925, and the appeal was lodged in this court on August 13, following. The record discloses that notice of appeal was served on the county attorney only. It shows no service of notice on the court clerk, as required by section 2809, Comp. Stat. 1921. It does not show the issuance of any summons in error, nor the waiver of such by the Attorney General. This court does not acquire jurisdiction of the appeal. Burgess v. State, 18 Okla. Cr. 574, 197 P. 173, and authorities cited.

For the reasons assigned, the attempted appeal is dismissed.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK CR 136, 255 P. 719, 37 Okla. Crim. 18, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutke-v-state-oklacrimapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack