Tate v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Tate v. State

1933 OK CR 56, 22 P.2d 1040, 54 Okla. Crim. 399, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 125

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 2, 1933

DocketNo. A-8530.

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK CR 56 (Tate 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

Tate v. State, 1933 OK CR 56, 22 P.2d 1040, 54 Okla. Crim. 399, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 125 (Okla. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to' as the defendant, was jointly charged with Jesse Pruitt of the crime of robbery with firearms, and sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of 20 years and appeals.

The testimony of the state is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The defendant relies upon an alibi. The jury, after hearing all the evidence, found against the defendant.

The defendant in his brief and argument admits that the evidence on the part of the state, if believed, is sufficient to sustain the conviction, but insists on his eleventh assignment of error, that the court erred in not sustaining his motion for a new trial.

The chief argument of the defendant is directed to the question of punishment, insisting that twenty years is excessive, and that the judgment should be modified. An examination of the record shows that Tate is a young man and has never before been charged with a crime. No one was injured in the robbery. The evidence shows that the defendant and another party entered the bank, and flourished their guns and said, “Stick ’em up,” and proceeded to' take the money, and left the bank without injury to any one.

After a careful examination of the record, we hold that the punishment of 20 years is excessive, and that the judgment should be modified to 10 years, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to' as the defendant, was jointly charged with Jesse Pruitt of the crime of robbery with firearms, and sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of 20 years and appeals.

The testimony of the state is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The defendant relies upon an alibi. The jury, after hearing all the evidence, found against the defendant.

The defendant in his brief and argument admits that the evidence on the part of the state, if believed, is sufficient to sustain the conviction, but insists on his eleventh assignment of error, that the court erred in not sustaining his motion for a new trial.

The chief argument of the defendant is directed to the question of punishment, insisting that twenty years is excessive, and that the judgment should be modified. An examination of the record shows that Tate is a young man and has never before been charged with a crime. No one was injured in the robbery. The evidence shows that the defendant and another party entered the bank, and flourished their guns and said, “Stick ’em up,” and proceeded to' take the money, and left the bank without injury to any one.

After a careful examination of the record, we hold that the punishment of 20 years is excessive, and that the judgment should be modified to 10 years, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK CR 56, 22 P.2d 1040, 54 Okla. Crim. 399, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-state-oklacrimapp-1933.