Means v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Means v. State

1914 OK CR 37, 139 P. 1155, 10 Okla. Crim. 581, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 18, 1914

DocketNo. A-2059.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1914 OK CR 37 (Means 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

Means v. State, 1914 OK CR 37, 139 P. 1155, 10 Okla. Crim. 581, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

ARMSTRONG, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, Pete Means, was tried and convicted at the January, 1913, term of the district court of Carter county, on a charge of burglary, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary' for *582 a period of two years. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no notices of appeal were served on the county attorney and the clerk of the .district court. Counsel for the plaintiff in error have filed a response to the motion, in which they allege that notices were served, but no proof of the service is attached, and no effort has been made to prsperly correct the case-made as the law provides. The motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 1913 ; the response thereto was filed on October 1, 1913. Many months have elapsed, yet no action has been taken looking to the correction of the record, or otherwise protecting the rights of the plaintiff in error, if any. The proper method for correction of a case-made is outlined in the statutes, and this court has repeatedly interpreted the same, so that there is no-reason apparent-why counsel have not taken some action in the premises, except-for the reason that the notices were not, as a matter of fact, served as the law requires. Instead of filing a response in the form of an unverified statement, counsel should have taken proper legal steps and secured the necessary orders from this court to meet the objections raised by the Attorney General.

Not having done so, there is no alternative left to us but to dismiss this appeal; and it is so ordered.

DOYLE, J., concurs. EURMAN, J., not participating.

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

ARMSTRONG, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, Pete Means, was tried and convicted at the January, 1913, term of the district court of Carter county, on a charge of burglary, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary' for *582 a period of two years. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no notices of appeal were served on the county attorney and the clerk of the .district court. Counsel for the plaintiff in error have filed a response to the motion, in which they allege that notices were served, but no proof of the service is attached, and no effort has been made to prsperly correct the case-made as the law provides. The motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 1913 ; the response thereto was filed on October 1, 1913. Many months have elapsed, yet no action has been taken looking to the correction of the record, or otherwise protecting the rights of the plaintiff in error, if any. The proper method for correction of a case-made is outlined in the statutes, and this court has repeatedly interpreted the same, so that there is no-reason apparent-why counsel have not taken some action in the premises, except-for the reason that the notices were not, as a matter of fact, served as the law requires. Instead of filing a response in the form of an unverified statement, counsel should have taken proper legal steps and secured the necessary orders from this court to meet the objections raised by the Attorney General.

Not having done so, there is no alternative left to us but to dismiss this appeal; and it is so ordered.

DOYLE, J., concurs. EURMAN, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 37, 139 P. 1155, 10 Okla. Crim. 581, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/means-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack