Meade v. Oklahoma City

1967 OK CR 158, 432 P.2d 135, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 381
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 20, 1967
DocketNo. A-14115
StatusPublished

This text of 1967 OK CR 158 (Meade v. Oklahoma City) 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
Meade v. Oklahoma City, 1967 OK CR 158, 432 P.2d 135, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 381 (Okla. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

BUSSEY, Judge.

Raymond Cecil Meade was charged in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Oklahoma City by Information with the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, was tried by the Judge, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $20.00.

A timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We feel that this is a case where it is unnecessary to recite the evidence or the law but in order to speed up the disposition of the many cases pending on appeal, the case should properly be disposed of by memorandum opinion, as authorized by the Legislature, 20 O.S. (1951) § 47, as amended 1953; for as was said in Nichols v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 414, 264 P.2d 366:

“In a misdemeanor case, where a careful reading of the briefs of the appellant and the State, as well as a careful examination of the record or casemade, discloses no reversible error, and where there is ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury (or judgment of the court in absence of the jury), and judgment rendered, this court may affirm such judgment by summary order, or brief statement, or by opinion of length, as the court may see fit. Tit. 20 O.S. 1951 § 47, as amended by S.B. 450, § 2, 1953 Legislature.”

See also Garbey v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 523.

We have carefully examined the record and briefs of counsel and are of the opinion that the evidence supports the findings of the jury, and that the record is free from fundamental error. We are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.

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

Related

Nichols v. State
1953 OK CR 162 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1953)
Garbey v. State
1964 OK CR 119 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1967 OK CR 158, 432 P.2d 135, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meade-v-oklahoma-city-oklacrimapp-1967.