Ragland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ragland v. State

1920 OK CR 61, 187 P. 251, 17 Okla. Crim. 707, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 34

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 3, 1920

DocketNo. A-3386.

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 61 (Ragland 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

Ragland v. State, 1920 OK CR 61, 187 P. 251, 17 Okla. Crim. 707, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 34 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, J. Ragland, was convicted on a charge of selling to one J. E. Oates one-half pint of whisky for the sum of $2.50, and in conformity with the verdict was sentenced to be confined for 90 days 'in the county jail and pay a fine of $50, and the costs. He appealed from the judgment by filing in this court on June 10, 1918, petition in error with case-made. No brief has been filed and no appearance made in this court on his behalf. For this reason, the Attorney General has moved to affirm the judgment. An examination of the record discloses that the errors assigned are without merit. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, J. Ragland, was convicted on a charge of selling to one J. E. Oates one-half pint of whisky for the sum of $2.50, and in conformity with the verdict was sentenced to be confined for 90 days 'in the county jail and pay a fine of $50, and the costs. He appealed from the judgment by filing in this court on June 10, 1918, petition in error with case-made. No brief has been filed and no appearance made in this court on his behalf. For this reason, the Attorney General has moved to affirm the judgment. An examination of the record discloses that the errors assigned are without merit. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 61, 187 P. 251, 17 Okla. Crim. 707, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragland-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.