Moulton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Moulton v. State

1972 OK CR 63, 494 P.2d 680, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 446

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 23, 1972

DocketNo. A-17187

StatusPublished

This text of 1972 OK CR 63 (Moulton 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

Moulton v. State, 1972 OK CR 63, 494 P.2d 680, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 446 (Okla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Will Moulton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Custer County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Attempted Rape; his punishment was set at ten (10) years imprisonment. Thereafter, the defendant filed an Application for Post Conviction Relief in the trial court on October 18, 1971, which was denied on November 22, 1971, and from said denial of post conviction relief, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant asserts five propositions of error in his Pro se brief. We have carefully examined the propositions asserted and observe that proposition one, that the evidence does not show attempted rape, and proposition two, that the court erred in permitting admission into evidence of other crimes, have previously been discussed in defendant’s regular appeal, Moulton v. State, Okl.Cr., 476 P.2d 366. We have carefully examined defendant’s three remaining propositions and are of the opinion that they do not contain sufficient merit to warrant discussion. The Order Denying Post Conviction Relief is accordingly affirmed and the defendant is advised that he has exhausted his State remedies.

BRETT, J., concurs in results. SIMMS, J., concurs.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Will Moulton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Custer County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Attempted Rape; his punishment was set at ten (10) years imprisonment. Thereafter, the defendant filed an Application for Post Conviction Relief in the trial court on October 18, 1971, which was denied on November 22, 1971, and from said denial of post conviction relief, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant asserts five propositions of error in his Pro se brief. We have carefully examined the propositions asserted and observe that proposition one, that the evidence does not show attempted rape, and proposition two, that the court erred in permitting admission into evidence of other crimes, have previously been discussed in defendant’s regular appeal, Moulton v. State, Okl.Cr., 476 P.2d 366. We have carefully examined defendant’s three remaining propositions and are of the opinion that they do not contain sufficient merit to warrant discussion. The Order Denying Post Conviction Relief is accordingly affirmed and the defendant is advised that he has exhausted his State remedies.

BRETT, J., concurs in results. SIMMS, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1972 OK CR 63, 494 P.2d 680, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moulton-v-state-oklacrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack