Talkington v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Talkington v. State

1918 OK CR 132, 175 P. 132, 15 Okla. Crim. 83, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 22

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 5, 1918

DocketNo. A-2810.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1918 OK CR 132 (Talkington 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

Talkington v. State, 1918 OK CR 132, 175 P. 132, 15 Okla. Crim. 83, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

Plaintiffs, in error, Steve and Gus Talkington, were tried and convicted on an information jointly charging that they did keep and maintain a place, known as the Owl Cafe in the town of Wirt, Carter county, with the unlawful and felonious intention and purpose of then and there and therein selling, bartering, giving away, and otherwise furnishing to other persons intoxicating liquors, and did then and. there and therein keep and maintain fixtures, appliances, and a supply of such liquors for and with such felonious intention and purpose. The jury by their verdicts assessed the punishment of the defendant Steve Talkington at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years and a fine of $1,000, and the punishment of Gus Talkington at confinement in the county jail for one month and a fine of $100. From the judgments rendered on the verdicts an appeal was perfected.

Since the appeal was taken, and before the final submission of the cause, suggestion of the death of the plaintiff in error Steve Talkington has been made. In a criminal action, the purpose of the proceeding being to punish the defendant in person, the action must necessarily abate upon his death. It is therefore adjudged and ordered that all proceeding in this action be abated as to plaintiff in error Steve Talkington, with direction to the district court of Carter county to enter an order to that effect.

*85 The Attorney General has also called to the attention of the court the fact.that plaintiff in error Gus Talkington has been granted'a parole by the Governor, which has been duly accepted by him. Where a plaintiff in error accepts a parole pending the determination of his appeál, he thereby waives the right to have his appeal determined; and, when the attention of the court shall be called judicially to the fact that a parole has been granted and accepted, the appeal will be dismissed. Odom v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 540, 129 Pac. 445.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal of the plaintiff in error Gus Talkington in this case be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ„ concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

Plaintiffs, in error, Steve and Gus Talkington, were tried and convicted on an information jointly charging that they did keep and maintain a place, known as the Owl Cafe in the town of Wirt, Carter county, with the unlawful and felonious intention and purpose of then and there and therein selling, bartering, giving away, and otherwise furnishing to other persons intoxicating liquors, and did then and. there and therein keep and maintain fixtures, appliances, and a supply of such liquors for and with such felonious intention and purpose. The jury by their verdicts assessed the punishment of the defendant Steve Talkington at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years and a fine of $1,000, and the punishment of Gus Talkington at confinement in the county jail for one month and a fine of $100. From the judgments rendered on the verdicts an appeal was perfected.

Since the appeal was taken, and before the final submission of the cause, suggestion of the death of the plaintiff in error Steve Talkington has been made. In a criminal action, the purpose of the proceeding being to punish the defendant in person, the action must necessarily abate upon his death. It is therefore adjudged and ordered that all proceeding in this action be abated as to plaintiff in error Steve Talkington, with direction to the district court of Carter county to enter an order to that effect.

*85 The Attorney General has also called to the attention of the court the fact.that plaintiff in error Gus Talkington has been granted'a parole by the Governor, which has been duly accepted by him. Where a plaintiff in error accepts a parole pending the determination of his appeál, he thereby waives the right to have his appeal determined; and, when the attention of the court shall be called judicially to the fact that a parole has been granted and accepted, the appeal will be dismissed. Odom v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 540, 129 Pac. 445.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal of the plaintiff in error Gus Talkington in this case be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK CR 132, 175 P. 132, 15 Okla. Crim. 83, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talkington-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack