Putnam v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Putnam v. State

1957 OK CR 101, 317 P.2d 1117, 1957 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 218

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 6, 1957

DocketNo. A-12488

StatusPublished

This text of 1957 OK CR 101 (Putnam 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

Putnam v. State, 1957 OK CR 101, 317 P.2d 1117, 1957 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 218 (Okla. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

NIX, Judge.

Richard Eugene Putnam, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the District Court of Washington County with the crime of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor after having been previously convicted of the same crime in 1952; thereby prosecuted in the case at bar for a felony by virtue of second and subsequent offense. A jury was waived and said cause tried to the court who found the defendant guilty and assessed his punishment at one year in the state penitentiary and to pay a fine of $1.

The defendant appeals upon the sole proposition that the court erred in not sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the information on the grounds that the court was without jurisdiction of the..subject matter in that there had been no subsequent offense under the 1955 drunk driving act. It is conceded by the defendant that he plead guilty to drunk driving in 1952 but contends that said conviction was previous to the enactment of the 1955 Act and consequently, could not be said to be the basis for a subsequent offense prosecution.

This court has recently passed upon this question in two cases, Dollie v. State, 316 P.2d 208, 212, and Miller v. State, 316 P.2d 203, 204. In the Dollie case this court said:

“The Act of 1955 did not create or define a new or independent crime, but said statute describes circumstances wherein one found guilty of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated may be more severly punished because of a previous conviction.”

In the Miller case, supra, this court said:

“S.L. 1955, P. 263 (47 O.S.Supp. 1955 § 93), prescribing heavier punishment on a second conviction for violation of provisions of ‘this Act’, comprehends a prior conviction under the Act, 47 O.S.1951 § 93, amended, as it expressly in heading amends section 93 of title and does not merely refer to prior conviction under S.L. 1955 P. 263, 47 O.S.Supp.1955 § 93.”

In view of the fact that this question is thoroughly discussed in the two cases herein cited, it is unnecessary to lengthen this decision with additional comment and in accordance with said decisions, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J.,' concur.

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

NIX, Judge.

Richard Eugene Putnam, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the District Court of Washington County with the crime of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor after having been previously convicted of the same crime in 1952; thereby prosecuted in the case at bar for a felony by virtue of second and subsequent offense. A jury was waived and said cause tried to the court who found the defendant guilty and assessed his punishment at one year in the state penitentiary and to pay a fine of $1.

The defendant appeals upon the sole proposition that the court erred in not sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the information on the grounds that the court was without jurisdiction of the..subject matter in that there had been no subsequent offense under the 1955 drunk driving act. It is conceded by the defendant that he plead guilty to drunk driving in 1952 but contends that said conviction was previous to the enactment of the 1955 Act and consequently, could not be said to be the basis for a subsequent offense prosecution.

This court has recently passed upon this question in two cases, Dollie v. State, 316 P.2d 208, 212, and Miller v. State, 316 P.2d 203, 204. In the Dollie case this court said:

“The Act of 1955 did not create or define a new or independent crime, but said statute describes circumstances wherein one found guilty of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated may be more severly punished because of a previous conviction.”

In the Miller case, supra, this court said:

“S.L. 1955, P. 263 (47 O.S.Supp. 1955 § 93), prescribing heavier punishment on a second conviction for violation of provisions of ‘this Act’, comprehends a prior conviction under the Act, 47 O.S.1951 § 93, amended, as it expressly in heading amends section 93 of title and does not merely refer to prior conviction under S.L. 1955 P. 263, 47 O.S.Supp.1955 § 93.”

In view of the fact that this question is thoroughly discussed in the two cases herein cited, it is unnecessary to lengthen this decision with additional comment and in accordance with said decisions, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J.,' concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1957 OK CR 101, 317 P.2d 1117, 1957 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-v-state-oklacrimapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack