Smith v. State of Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court

Smith v. State of Arizona

58 P.2d 749, 48 Ariz. 9, 1936 Ariz. LEXIS 127

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedJune 16, 1936

DocketCriminal No. 840.

StatusPublished

This text of 58 P.2d 749 (Smith v. State of Arizona) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. State of Arizona, 58 P.2d 749, 48 Ariz. 9, 1936 Ariz. LEXIS 127 (Ark. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant, Claude Smith, was convicted of burglary in the first degree, in the superior court of Maricopa county, and sentenced to not less than five nor more than fifteen years in the penitentiary. He has appealed.

The record was filed here January 25th, and the transcript of the evidence February 26, 1936. Defendant has made no appearance, beyond filing the appeal papers, and because of his failure to do so the Attorney General, on May 1st, moved to have the case submitted on the record, which motion was granted.

It would seem more attention should be given an appeal where, as here, the record, including a transcript *Page 10 of the evidence (of 338 pages), is furnished at the expense of the county.

We have examined into the different papers on file, including the evidence, and find that defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

The defendant, Claude Smith, was convicted of burglary in the first degree, in the superior court of Maricopa county, and sentenced to not less than five nor more than fifteen years in the penitentiary. He has appealed.

The record was filed here January 25th, and the transcript of the evidence February 26, 1936. Defendant has made no appearance, beyond filing the appeal papers, and because of his failure to do so the Attorney General, on May 1st, moved to have the case submitted on the record, which motion was granted.

It would seem more attention should be given an appeal where, as here, the record, including a transcript *Page 10 of the evidence (of 338 pages), is furnished at the expense of the county.

We have examined into the different papers on file, including the evidence, and find that defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 P.2d 749, 48 Ariz. 9, 1936 Ariz. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-of-arizona-ariz-1936.