McMichael v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

McMichael v. State

1951 OK CR 21, 228 P.2d 203, 93 Okla. Crim. 341, 1951 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 224

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 14, 1951

DocketA-11196

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1951 OK CR 21 (McMichael 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

McMichael v. State, 1951 OK CR 21, 228 P.2d 203, 93 Okla. Crim. 341, 1951 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 224 (Okla. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

POWELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, Jack William McMichael, Jr., was charged by information with the offense of reckless driving. Upon, trial a verdict of guilty as charged was returned,- and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 30 days in jail, with the recommendation that the jail sentence be suspended.

An appeal was attempted by filing in this court a petition in error and case-made. The petition in error, in part, recites:

“* * * that the State of Oklahoma at the July term of the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, recovered a judgment of conviction against the said Jack William McMichael, Jr., in a certain action pending in said court wherein the said State of Oklahoma was plaintiff and the said Jack William’ McMichael, Jr., was defendant.”

An examination of the record discloses that the case-made contains no copy of the judgment referred to in the petition in error. This court from the beginning has uniformly held that it will not review the proceedings of the trial court, unless the record or case-made contains a copy of the final judgment from which the appeal is taken. McLellan v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 633, 103 P. 876; Bradford v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 367, 106 P. 535; Dansby v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 496, 124 P. 328; Fowler v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 157, 143 P. 658; Loyd v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 82, 151 P. 1190; Harjoe v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 187, 169 P. 659; Patton v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 409, 64 P. 2d 1245; *343 Swink v. State, 64 Okla. Cr. 466, 82 P. 2d 316. See also: Bennett v. State, 79 Okla. Cr. 161, 152 P. 2d 388, and Payne v. State, 84 Okla. Cr. 166, 180 P. 2d 193.

There is a note in the case-made that the court did render a judgment, and the appeal bond so indicates, though the extent of the punishment is omitted. Inasmuch as the case-made does not contain a copy of the judgment of the trial court, we are of the opinion that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

BEETT, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.

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

POWELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, Jack William McMichael, Jr., was charged by information with the offense of reckless driving. Upon, trial a verdict of guilty as charged was returned,- and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 30 days in jail, with the recommendation that the jail sentence be suspended.

An appeal was attempted by filing in this court a petition in error and case-made. The petition in error, in part, recites:

“* * * that the State of Oklahoma at the July term of the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, recovered a judgment of conviction against the said Jack William McMichael, Jr., in a certain action pending in said court wherein the said State of Oklahoma was plaintiff and the said Jack William’ McMichael, Jr., was defendant.”

An examination of the record discloses that the case-made contains no copy of the judgment referred to in the petition in error. This court from the beginning has uniformly held that it will not review the proceedings of the trial court, unless the record or case-made contains a copy of the final judgment from which the appeal is taken. McLellan v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 633, 103 P. 876; Bradford v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 367, 106 P. 535; Dansby v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 496, 124 P. 328; Fowler v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 157, 143 P. 658; Loyd v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 82, 151 P. 1190; Harjoe v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 187, 169 P. 659; Patton v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 409, 64 P. 2d 1245; *343 Swink v. State, 64 Okla. Cr. 466, 82 P. 2d 316. See also: Bennett v. State, 79 Okla. Cr. 161, 152 P. 2d 388, and Payne v. State, 84 Okla. Cr. 166, 180 P. 2d 193.

There is a note in the case-made that the court did render a judgment, and the appeal bond so indicates, though the extent of the punishment is omitted. Inasmuch as the case-made does not contain a copy of the judgment of the trial court, we are of the opinion that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

BEETT, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1951 OK CR 21, 228 P.2d 203, 93 Okla. Crim. 341, 1951 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmichael-v-state-oklacrimapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack