Mullikin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Mullikin v. State

1910 OK CR 41, 106 P. 1134, 3 Okla. Crim. 456, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 198

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 3, 1910

DocketNo. A-120.

StatusPublished

This text of 1910 OK CR 41 (Mullikin 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

Mullikin v. State, 1910 OK CR 41, 106 P. 1134, 3 Okla. Crim. 456, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 198 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted- in the county court of Garfield county for a violation of the prohibition ordinance. On March 28, 1908, judgment was rendered in said cause. Petition in error and ease-made was filed in this court on March 19, 1909. Counsel for the state has' filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that “more than one year has elapsed from the rendition of the judgment from which plaintiff in error undertakes to prosecute this appeal, and no notices of appeal have been filed or servéd by plaintiff in error, as provided by section 6949, Snyder’s St.” It appears from an examination of the record in this case that there has been a failure to comply with this statutory provision. In order to give this court jurisdiction, notices as required by the statute must be served upon the clerk of the court and the prosecuting attorney. The proof of service should be filed with the record in this court. There is nothing in the record before us which confers jurisdiction to review this case. For the reason stated, the motion to dismiss the purported appeal should be sustained.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted- in the county court of Garfield county for a violation of the prohibition ordinance. On March 28, 1908, judgment was rendered in said cause. Petition in error and ease-made was filed in this court on March 19, 1909. Counsel for the state has' filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that “more than one year has elapsed from the rendition of the judgment from which plaintiff in error undertakes to prosecute this appeal, and no notices of appeal have been filed or servéd by plaintiff in error, as provided by section 6949, Snyder’s St.” It appears from an examination of the record in this case that there has been a failure to comply with this statutory provision. In order to give this court jurisdiction, notices as required by the statute must be served upon the clerk of the court and the prosecuting attorney. The proof of service should be filed with the record in this court. There is nothing in the record before us which confers jurisdiction to review this case. For the reason stated, the motion to dismiss the purported appeal should be sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK CR 41, 106 P. 1134, 3 Okla. Crim. 456, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullikin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1910.