Powers v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Powers v. State

1923 OK CR 54, 212 P. 450, 23 Okla. Crim. 77, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 17, 1923

DocketNo. A-4071.

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK CR 54 (Powers 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

Powers v. State, 1923 OK CR 54, 212 P. 450, 23 Okla. Crim. 77, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

Plaintiff in error, Forest Powers, was convicted in the district court of Custer county on an information charging the theft of one Ford car, the property of Virgil Evans, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction.

The defendant is not represented by counsel in this court. We have nothing before us but the petition in error and case-made. The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

*78 The evidence shows: That on the date alleged a Ford car was stolen from the garage of the owner in the town of Wea-therford; the tracks showed that three men had pushed the car out of the garage onto the highway. On the following Tuesday the car was found at Sentinel. Ben Hughes, Jr., and Carl Wilson, residents of Sentinel, were arrested and informed against for the theft of this car. Upon arraignment they pleaded guilty. That plaintiff in error left Sentinel on the •day the other defendants were arrested and was arrested in Arizona.

The evidence shows that the defendants hired a Ford car in Sentinel the day before the ear in question was stolen and returned to Sentinel with the stolen car. There was- evidence tending to show that they were seen together on the road returning to Sentinel.

The defendant did not testify, and no testimony was of:fered on the part of the defense.

After a careful examination of all the evidence, our conclusion is that the testimony, without a doubt, is ample to sustain the conviction. The record shows defendant had a fair trial.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

Plaintiff in error, Forest Powers, was convicted in the district court of Custer county on an information charging the theft of one Ford car, the property of Virgil Evans, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction.

The defendant is not represented by counsel in this court. We have nothing before us but the petition in error and case-made. The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

*78 The evidence shows: That on the date alleged a Ford car was stolen from the garage of the owner in the town of Wea-therford; the tracks showed that three men had pushed the car out of the garage onto the highway. On the following Tuesday the car was found at Sentinel. Ben Hughes, Jr., and Carl Wilson, residents of Sentinel, were arrested and informed against for the theft of this car. Upon arraignment they pleaded guilty. That plaintiff in error left Sentinel on the •day the other defendants were arrested and was arrested in Arizona.

The evidence shows that the defendants hired a Ford car in Sentinel the day before the ear in question was stolen and returned to Sentinel with the stolen car. There was- evidence tending to show that they were seen together on the road returning to Sentinel.

The defendant did not testify, and no testimony was of:fered on the part of the defense.

After a careful examination of all the evidence, our conclusion is that the testimony, without a doubt, is ample to sustain the conviction. The record shows defendant had a fair trial.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK CR 54, 212 P. 450, 23 Okla. Crim. 77, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powers-v-state-oklacrimapp-1923.