Nowlin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Nowlin v. State

1911 OK CR 242, 115 P. 1131, 5 Okla. Crim. 710, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 240

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 16, 1911

DocketNo. A-598.

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK CR 242 (Nowlin 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

Nowlin v. State, 1911 OK CR 242, 115 P. 1131, 5 Okla. Crim. 710, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 240 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plalintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Pittsburg county at the October term, 1909, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors, and on the 14th day of October judgment was entered against him assessing a fine of one hundred dollars and costs, and imprisonment in the county jail for two months, at which time he was given sixty days to prepare and serve case-made. Time was given within which to suggest amendments, and settling of the case-made, and plaintiff in error was given ten days after the settling of the case-made to file his appeal in the Criminal Court of Appeals. On the 6th day of January the court entered an order extending the time to the 20th day of January in which to make and serve the case-made, and again fixed the time for suggesting amendments and settling the same, and allowed ten days from the date of settling for perfecting the appeal in this court. The case-made was signed and settled on the 28th day of January, 1910. The appeal was filed in this court on the 9th day of February, 1910, more than ten days after the date the case-made was signed and filed, and more than sixty days from the date of the judgment. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is not perfected within the time allowed by the order of the court or the statute. The motion is well taken and is sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, with directions to the trial court to enforce the judgment and sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plalintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Pittsburg county at the October term, 1909, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors, and on the 14th day of October judgment was entered against him assessing a fine of one hundred dollars and costs, and imprisonment in the county jail for two months, at which time he was given sixty days to prepare and serve case-made. Time was given within which to suggest amendments, and settling of the case-made, and plaintiff in error was given ten days after the settling of the case-made to file his appeal in the Criminal Court of Appeals. On the 6th day of January the court entered an order extending the time to the 20th day of January in which to make and serve the case-made, and again fixed the time for suggesting amendments and settling the same, and allowed ten days from the date of settling for perfecting the appeal in this court. The case-made was signed and settled on the 28th day of January, 1910. The appeal was filed in this court on the 9th day of February, 1910, more than ten days after the date the case-made was signed and filed, and more than sixty days from the date of the judgment. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is not perfected within the time allowed by the order of the court or the statute. The motion is well taken and is sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, with directions to the trial court to enforce the judgment and sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 242, 115 P. 1131, 5 Okla. Crim. 710, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowlin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.