Mitchem v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Mitchem v. State

1912 OK CR 260, 120 P. 1129, 7 Okla. Crim. 705, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 41

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 3, 1912

DocketNo. A-1309.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 260 (Mitchem 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

Mitchem v. State, 1912 OK CR 260, 120 P. 1129, 7 Okla. Crim. 705, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 41 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the June, 1911, term of the eounty court of Washington county, on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the unlawful intent to sell same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the following ground:

“Because the record shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor rendered in the eounty court of Washington eounty on the 5th day of June, 1911, and the petition in error and ease-made were not filed in this court until the *706 14th day of August, 1911, more than 60 days after the rendition of such judgment, no order having been made extending the time within which to file petition in error and case-made in this court beyond the time allowed by law.”

There is no answer to the motion to dismiss. We take it as confessed. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the June, 1911, term of the eounty court of Washington county, on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the unlawful intent to sell same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the following ground:

“Because the record shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor rendered in the eounty court of Washington eounty on the 5th day of June, 1911, and the petition in error and ease-made were not filed in this court until the *706 14th day of August, 1911, more than 60 days after the rendition of such judgment, no order having been made extending the time within which to file petition in error and case-made in this court beyond the time allowed by law.”

There is no answer to the motion to dismiss. We take it as confessed. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 260, 120 P. 1129, 7 Okla. Crim. 705, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchem-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.