Montgomery v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Montgomery v. State

1918 OK CR 16, 170 P. 519, 14 Okla. Crim. 298, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 114

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 13, 1918

DocketNo. A-2845.

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK CR 16 (Montgomery 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

Montgomery v. State, 1918 OK CR 16, 170 P. 519, 14 Okla. Crim. 298, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 114 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Jeff Montgomery, and Kinnie Barnett, were jointly charged with the unlawful possession of 24 pints of Budweiser beer, with the intent of violating provisions of the prohibitory laws. Upon their trial the jury returned a verdict, finding the defendant Barnett not guilty, and finding the defendant Jeff Montgomery ' guilty, and fixing his punishment at 30 days’ imprisonment and a fine of $50. From the judgment rendered on the verdict the defendant Montgomery appeals. No brief has been filed nor oral argument made. For this reason the Attorney ■ General has filed a motion to affirm the judgment.

An examination of the record discloses that the appeal is without merit. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Jeff Montgomery, and Kinnie Barnett, were jointly charged with the unlawful possession of 24 pints of Budweiser beer, with the intent of violating provisions of the prohibitory laws. Upon their trial the jury returned a verdict, finding the defendant Barnett not guilty, and finding the defendant Jeff Montgomery ' guilty, and fixing his punishment at 30 days’ imprisonment and a fine of $50. From the judgment rendered on the verdict the defendant Montgomery appeals. No brief has been filed nor oral argument made. For this reason the Attorney ■ General has filed a motion to affirm the judgment.

An examination of the record discloses that the appeal is without merit. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK CR 16, 170 P. 519, 14 Okla. Crim. 298, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.