Rives v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Rives v. State

1912 OK CR 91, 120 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 732, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 342

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 23, 1912

DocketNo. A-1092.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 91 (Rives 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

Rives v. State, 1912 OK CR 91, 120 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 732, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 342 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January, 1911 term of the county court of Pontotoc county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors for the purpose' of sale, and his punishment fixed at a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months. The Attorney General has filed the following motion to dismiss the appeal in this case:

“Petition in error was filed in this court April 13, 1911. Judgment was given January 9, 1911 (p. 36 of case-made). Order of court giving plaintiff in error thirty days to serve ease-made January 9, 1911, (p. 33 of case-made). February 8, 1911, order of court giving thirty days additional time to serve case-made and file appeal in Criminal Court of Appeals (p. 33% of case-made). February 28, 1911, order giving defendant thirty days additional time to serve ease-made and to file appeal in Criminal Court of Appeals (p. 34 of ease-made). The last extension of time given to file appeal and serve case-made expired March 81, 1911. Appeal was not filed in this court until April *733 13, 1911, thirteen days after the time given "by the trial court had expired. There is an unsigned order in the record (p. 35 of case-made) which conflicts with and is inconsistent with the orders made February 8th and 28th. Wherefore, the state of Oklahoma moves the court to dismiss the appeal filed herein by J. R. Rives, plaintiff in error, for the reason that the same was not filed as provided by law.” Counsel for plaintiff in error have filed no reply to this motion to dismiss. Our examination of the record supports the position taken by the Attorney General. The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January, 1911 term of the county court of Pontotoc county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors for the purpose' of sale, and his punishment fixed at a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months. The Attorney General has filed the following motion to dismiss the appeal in this case:

“Petition in error was filed in this court April 13, 1911. Judgment was given January 9, 1911 (p. 36 of case-made). Order of court giving plaintiff in error thirty days to serve ease-made January 9, 1911, (p. 33 of case-made). February 8, 1911, order of court giving thirty days additional time to serve case-made and file appeal in Criminal Court of Appeals (p. 33% of case-made). February 28, 1911, order giving defendant thirty days additional time to serve ease-made and to file appeal in Criminal Court of Appeals (p. 34 of ease-made). The last extension of time given to file appeal and serve case-made expired March 81, 1911. Appeal was not filed in this court until April *733 13, 1911, thirteen days after the time given "by the trial court had expired. There is an unsigned order in the record (p. 35 of case-made) which conflicts with and is inconsistent with the orders made February 8th and 28th. Wherefore, the state of Oklahoma moves the court to dismiss the appeal filed herein by J. R. Rives, plaintiff in error, for the reason that the same was not filed as provided by law.” Counsel for plaintiff in error have filed no reply to this motion to dismiss. Our examination of the record supports the position taken by the Attorney General. The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 91, 120 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 732, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rives-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.