Shipman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Shipman v. State

1971 OK CR 158, 483 P.2d 761

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 31, 1971

DocketNo. A-16187

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1971 OK CR 158 (Shipman 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

Shipman v. State, 1971 OK CR 158, 483 P.2d 761 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Bobbie Leon Shipman, hereinafter referred to as “defendant,” entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Larceny of an Automobile and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment, and after first indicating he did not wish to appeal, later changed his mind and from said Judgment and Sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The defendant does not contend any irregularities concerning the plea of guilty and this appeal concerns only the excessiveness of punishment. The record before this Court does not contain material concerning the circumstances of the offense. The record does reveal that the defendant, with counsel, voluntarily entered a plea of guilty with full knowledge of the consequences of such plea. It is the burden of one who seeks relief of a conviction on appeal to present sufficient facts in the record to warrant this Court to grant affirmative relief. Absent some showing in the record that the punishment was excessive, this Court cannot conscientiously determine that the punishment is in fact excessive. The Judgment and Sentence is therefore affirmed.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Bobbie Leon Shipman, hereinafter referred to as “defendant,” entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Larceny of an Automobile and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment, and after first indicating he did not wish to appeal, later changed his mind and from said Judgment and Sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The defendant does not contend any irregularities concerning the plea of guilty and this appeal concerns only the excessiveness of punishment. The record before this Court does not contain material concerning the circumstances of the offense. The record does reveal that the defendant, with counsel, voluntarily entered a plea of guilty with full knowledge of the consequences of such plea. It is the burden of one who seeks relief of a conviction on appeal to present sufficient facts in the record to warrant this Court to grant affirmative relief. Absent some showing in the record that the punishment was excessive, this Court cannot conscientiously determine that the punishment is in fact excessive. The Judgment and Sentence is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 158, 483 P.2d 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shipman-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack