Washington v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Washington v. State

1954 OK CR 113, 272 P.2d 368, 1954 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 29, 1954

DocketNo. A-12025

StatusPublished

This text of 1954 OK CR 113 (Washington 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

Washington v. State, 1954 OK CR 113, 272 P.2d 368, 1954 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150 (Okla. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error Roy Washington, defendant below, was charged by information in the common pleas court of Tulsa county, Oklahoma, with having operated a motor vehicle over a public highway in Tulsa county, Oklahoma, to wit, Pine Street and Lansing Street. The offense was allegedly committed on July 17, 1953. The defendant was tried by a jury, convicted and the jury being unable to agree his punishment was left to be assessed by the court, whereupon he was fined $150 and costs; judgment and sentence entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

This appeal was filed in the Criminal Court of Appeals on December 22, 1953. Under the rules of this court a brief in support of the petition in error should have been filed within 30 days. This matter was set for oral argument for March 3, 1954 and was submitted without oral argument on the record without briefs. It has been repeatedly held if a defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and neither any brief is filed nor appearance for oral argument is made this court will examine the record and the evidence and if no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant is apparent, will affirm the judgment. Whitlow v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253, and numerous other cases to the same effect, this court will examine the record for jurisdictional errors and where no fundamental error appears the judgment will be affirmed. We have examined the record herein and find that the information is sufficient, the instructions of the court are sufficient, the judgment and sentence is regular. This conviction is accordingly affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.

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

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error Roy Washington, defendant below, was charged by information in the common pleas court of Tulsa county, Oklahoma, with having operated a motor vehicle over a public highway in Tulsa county, Oklahoma, to wit, Pine Street and Lansing Street. The offense was allegedly committed on July 17, 1953. The defendant was tried by a jury, convicted and the jury being unable to agree his punishment was left to be assessed by the court, whereupon he was fined $150 and costs; judgment and sentence entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

This appeal was filed in the Criminal Court of Appeals on December 22, 1953. Under the rules of this court a brief in support of the petition in error should have been filed within 30 days. This matter was set for oral argument for March 3, 1954 and was submitted without oral argument on the record without briefs. It has been repeatedly held if a defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and neither any brief is filed nor appearance for oral argument is made this court will examine the record and the evidence and if no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant is apparent, will affirm the judgment. Whitlow v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253, and numerous other cases to the same effect, this court will examine the record for jurisdictional errors and where no fundamental error appears the judgment will be affirmed. We have examined the record herein and find that the information is sufficient, the instructions of the court are sufficient, the judgment and sentence is regular. This conviction is accordingly affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1954 OK CR 113, 272 P.2d 368, 1954 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-oklacrimapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack