Reed v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Reed v. State

1914 OK CR 5, 137 P. 369, 10 Okla. Crim. 444, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 120

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 10, 1914

DocketNo. A-1997.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 1914 OK CR 5 (Reed 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

Reed v. State, 1914 OK CR 5, 137 P. 369, 10 Okla. Crim. 444, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 120 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

FURMAN, J.

(after stating the facts as above). When-the appeal was taken, the Criminal Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction of the cause, and the county court lost jurisdiction and all control over the case, and had no right to make any order or enter any judgment in said case, and any such order or action if taken would have been a nullity. It would be an absurdity to say that the cause could be legally pending in two courts at the same time. The jurisdiction of one must yield to the other. When the case was affirmed, it was returned to the county court, but only for the purpose of carrying out the final judgment of this court. As was well said in the case of State v. Turner, 39 S. C. 420, 17 S. E. 885:

“A different ruling, in the language of Chancellor Gaillard in Perkins v. Lang, 1 McCord, Eq. [S. C.] 31, note, cited in Ex parte Knox, 17 S. C. 214, involves the inconsistency: 'That after a case has been solemnly determined by this court in the last resort, a single judge in the circuit court might cause the decision to be again brought into question. This cannot be. It would utterly destroy the symmetry of the law, tend to prolong litigation and to produce endless confusion.’ ”

This is not only the law upon reason and authority, but is absolutely settled by our statute. Section 6007, Rev. Laws 1910, is as follows:

“On a judgment of affirmance against the defendant the original judgment must be carried into execution, as the appellate court may direct.”

*446 Both upon authority and upon the statute the county court should have paid no attention whatever to the pretended motion for a new trial, but should have proceeded at once with the execution of the judgment. Under these conditions no court has the right to interfere by habeas corpus proceedings, injunction, motion for'new trial, or in any manner, with the execution of the mandate of this court. There must be an end to litigation.

The pretended appeal is therefore dismissed, and the county court is directed to proceed at once with the execution of the judgment. Mandate will issue insianter.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

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

FURMAN, J.

(after stating the facts as above). When-the appeal was taken, the Criminal Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction of the cause, and the county court lost jurisdiction and all control over the case, and had no right to make any order or enter any judgment in said case, and any such order or action if taken would have been a nullity. It would be an absurdity to say that the cause could be legally pending in two courts at the same time. The jurisdiction of one must yield to the other. When the case was affirmed, it was returned to the county court, but only for the purpose of carrying out the final judgment of this court. As was well said in the case of State v. Turner, 39 S. C. 420, 17 S. E. 885:

“A different ruling, in the language of Chancellor Gaillard in Perkins v. Lang, 1 McCord, Eq. [S. C.] 31, note, cited in Ex parte Knox, 17 S. C. 214, involves the inconsistency: 'That after a case has been solemnly determined by this court in the last resort, a single judge in the circuit court might cause the decision to be again brought into question. This cannot be. It would utterly destroy the symmetry of the law, tend to prolong litigation and to produce endless confusion.’ ”

This is not only the law upon reason and authority, but is absolutely settled by our statute. Section 6007, Rev. Laws 1910, is as follows:

“On a judgment of affirmance against the defendant the original judgment must be carried into execution, as the appellate court may direct.”

*446 Both upon authority and upon the statute the county court should have paid no attention whatever to the pretended motion for a new trial, but should have proceeded at once with the execution of the judgment. Under these conditions no court has the right to interfere by habeas corpus proceedings, injunction, motion for'new trial, or in any manner, with the execution of the mandate of this court. There must be an end to litigation.

The pretended appeal is therefore dismissed, and the county court is directed to proceed at once with the execution of the judgment. Mandate will issue insianter.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 5, 137 P. 369, 10 Okla. Crim. 444, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack