Victor v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Victor v. State

1917 OK CR 44, 162 P. 1183, 13 Okla. Crim. 153, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 51

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 17, 1917

DocketNo. A-2672.

StatusPublished

This text of 1917 OK CR 44 (Victor 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

Victor v. State, 1917 OK CR 44, 162 P. 1183, 13 Okla. Crim. 153, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 51 (Okla. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in ' error was tried and convicted in the district court of Haskell county, on an information charging statutory rape. The judgment and sentence of th|| court, rendered on the 9th day of December, 1915, was that he be imprisoned in the penitentiary at McAlester for the term of seven years. From the judgment an appeal Ayas taken by filing in this court on March 10, 1916, a petition in error with case-made, Counsel for the state have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that said plaintiff in error is out of the jurisdiction of this court, and is at this time an inmate of the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., having been committed there upon a judgment and sentence rendered on a conviction for the crime of forgery. The question presented by the motion to dismiss the appeal is the same as that decided in Belcher v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 50, 130 Pac. 515, and in numerous other cases, the last being Justus v. State, ante, p. 54, 161 Pac. 1177, wherein it was held that where a defendant has been *154 convicted and sentenced, and perfects ‘an appeal, this court will not consider his appeal when the defendant is where he cannot be made to respond to any judgment or order which may be rendered in the case. Upon a careful examination of the motion and the proof supporting the same, we are of opinion that plaintiff in error has waived the right to have his appeal in this court considered and determined. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in ' error was tried and convicted in the district court of Haskell county, on an information charging statutory rape. The judgment and sentence of th|| court, rendered on the 9th day of December, 1915, was that he be imprisoned in the penitentiary at McAlester for the term of seven years. From the judgment an appeal Ayas taken by filing in this court on March 10, 1916, a petition in error with case-made, Counsel for the state have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that said plaintiff in error is out of the jurisdiction of this court, and is at this time an inmate of the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., having been committed there upon a judgment and sentence rendered on a conviction for the crime of forgery. The question presented by the motion to dismiss the appeal is the same as that decided in Belcher v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 50, 130 Pac. 515, and in numerous other cases, the last being Justus v. State, ante, p. 54, 161 Pac. 1177, wherein it was held that where a defendant has been *154 convicted and sentenced, and perfects ‘an appeal, this court will not consider his appeal when the defendant is where he cannot be made to respond to any judgment or order which may be rendered in the case. Upon a careful examination of the motion and the proof supporting the same, we are of opinion that plaintiff in error has waived the right to have his appeal in this court considered and determined. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK CR 44, 162 P. 1183, 13 Okla. Crim. 153, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-v-state-oklacrimapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack