State v. Mansfield

Arizona Supreme Court

State v. Mansfield

401 P.2d 409, 98 Ariz. 8, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 231

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedApril 28, 1965

DocketNo. 1354

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 401 P.2d 409 (State v. Mansfield) 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

State v. Mansfield, 401 P.2d 409, 98 Ariz. 8, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 231 (Ark. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of an attempt to obtain money by means of a false or bogus check in violation of A.R.S. § 13-311. She was represented by counsel at the trial. Appellant went into a Safeway Store and attempted to have a check approved so that she could cash it. The employee of the store who was charged with the duty of approving checks was suspicious, questioned appellant, and then, said he was going to call the bank. At this point appellant admitted the check was m> good. The check was drawn on a fictitious-account.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal by and through her appointed counsel. The county attorney moved the appeal be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The motion was denied and this court ordered the appeal be submitted on the record. On examination of the record and the transcript' of testimony we find no reversible error. State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of an attempt to obtain money by means of a false or bogus check in violation of A.R.S. § 13-311. She was represented by counsel at the trial. Appellant went into a Safeway Store and attempted to have a check approved so that she could cash it. The employee of the store who was charged with the duty of approving checks was suspicious, questioned appellant, and then, said he was going to call the bank. At this point appellant admitted the check was m> good. The check was drawn on a fictitious-account.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal by and through her appointed counsel. The county attorney moved the appeal be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The motion was denied and this court ordered the appeal be submitted on the record. On examination of the record and the transcript' of testimony we find no reversible error. State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 P.2d 409, 98 Ariz. 8, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mansfield-ariz-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack